From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Aug 5 17:17:41 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:17:41 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Actions from GNSO Council Wrap Up Session In-Reply-To: <00cd01ce8a38$ead96340$c08c29c0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: Dear SCI members, This is a reminder of the actions from the GNSO Council Wrap Up Session that we can discuss on our call tomorrow, Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET). In particular, the GNSO Council discussed several issues relating to the SCI at its wrap up session on Thursday, 18 July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. See pages 52-59 in the transcript at: http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-18jul1 3-en.pdf. Specifically, the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter, which resulted in the following actions: 1. The GNSO Council agreed that the SCI for now is to be a 'standing committee' and the charter should be amended accordingly if it is not clear from the current wording. 2. On decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions), the Council agreed to consider this issue further on the mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other with the mailing list (this will be reflected in the action items). Jeff was also asked to provide in writing his contribution with regard to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. I have attached for discussion during our call the version of the charter as it stood prior to the changes suggested by Mikey, since I think that version reflects the status of the SCI as a 'standing committee'. However, if this is not clear in the current version, we can discuss how to clarify it. In addition, I will share any discussions concerning the SCI decision-making process that may subsequently appear on the GNSO Council list. Also, the Council has added two new issues for the SCI to consider: 1. Voting: The option of voting by email. 2. Procedural waiver: Whether a provision / waiver should be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures that in certain circumstances would specifically allow the GNSO Council to bypass its procedures (for example in the case of non-objection). If there were SCI members present during the wrap-up session please feel free to comment on, add to, or amend what I have reported above. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Revisions - 130724.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26849 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Aug 5 17:30:55 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:30:55 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. -- 12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. It also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013 . Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda 06 August 2013 SCI Meeting: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 5. SCI charter revision (20 mins) 6. Working Group self assessment (15 mins) 7. AOB (5 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Aug 5 17:33:51 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:33:51 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, This is a reminder of an action sent following the meeting on 02 July 2013. Attached for your review is the revised procedure for re-submitting a motion based on the suggestions from the call on 02 July. The changes are included as redlines. It also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013. Note that two of the questions from Marika were addressed, but the remaining question below and in the attached document needs to be discussed. Please send your comments and questions on the list. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Remaining question from Marika: The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of further consideration of the Final Issue Report, any Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this 'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Re-Submitting Motion 02072013.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 188418 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ken.bour at verizon.net Tue Aug 6 21:48:22 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:48:22 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Working Group Self-Assessment: Live Test Message-ID: <012301ce92ee$aca94810$05fbd830$@verizon.net> SCI Members: As discussed on the conference call, below is a draft memo from Ron to Mikey requesting that he invite the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group (for which he is Chair) to help the SCI by testing the current version of the Working Group Self-Assessment questionnaire. Ken Bour Mikey: As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. In particular, we are interested in learning: . Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? . Are the design and format straightforward? . Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? . Are the instructions clear? . Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? . Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? . Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff Chair-SCI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julia.charvolen at icann.org Tue Aug 6 22:26:50 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 15:26:50 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 6 August 2013 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 September 2013 at 1900 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 19:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130806-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Primary ? Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate Mikey O?Connor ? ISPCP ? Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Primary Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary ? Vice-Chair Edward Morris - NCUC? Primary Nuno Garcia ? NCUC - Alternate Ken Bour ? guest speaker Apologies: Jennifer Wolfe ? NCA primary Amr Elsadr ? NCUC Alternate James Bladel ? Registrar Stakeholder Group ? Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Julia Charvolen ** 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, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 6 August 2013: Marika Konings:Some WGs have been suffering from holiday fatigue Julie Hedlund:Please see the latest Self Assessment Survey at: http://www.questionpro.com/a/editSurvey.do?surveyID=3582146 Ken Bour:http://scitestwg.questionpro.com Julia Charvolen:Please mute your microphones for the echo if you are not speaking Avri Doria:Needs to include NCSG,s not all NCSG are either in NCUC or npoc NC Marika Konings:I am watching ;-) Ken Bour:Thanks, Avri Avri Doria:Just did it.it its ready for wider testing. Ken Bour:I will drop off and start work on the memo. Ron A:Thank you, Ken! Mike O'Connor:James Bladel sends regrets for the call today Julia Charvolen:Thank you Mikey , noted! Marika Konings:The PDP Manual is part of the GNSO Operating Procedures Marika Konings:Like the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Marika Konings:They should be consistent - a lot of work went into those ;-) Marika Konings:@Avri - are you suggesting that supermajority would apply for any changes to the operating procedures? Avri Doria:Currently I think just majority its required for OP procedure changes. Avri Doria:So, buy a majority we could downgrade a superiority condition Marika Konings:yes, simple majority currently applies Marika Konings:@Avri - sorry I misunderstood you. It may be helpful to work your example out as a use case? That may help inform the WG deliberations. Marika Konings:SCI /Council deliberations I mean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Aug 7 06:24:27 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:24:27 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24B94F4F47C44CCFB8178471504914CD@WUKPC> All, sorry for having missed the call due to sickness. I hope the meeting ran smoothly and will keep me updated with the recordings. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 7:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. -- 12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. It also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda 06 August 2013 SCI Meeting: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 5. SCI charter revision (20 mins) 6. Working Group self assessment (15 mins) 7. AOB (5 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Aug 7 18:12:39 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:12:39 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting In-Reply-To: <24B94F4F47C44CCFB8178471504914CD@WUKPC> References: <24B94F4F47C44CCFB8178471504914CD@WUKPC> Message-ID: <003a01ce9399$b5d270f0$217752d0$@rnapartners.com> Thanks for touching base, Wolf-Ulrich. Sorry to hear about your ill health. Get well soon. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 02:24 To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting All, sorry for having missed the call due to sickness. I hope the meeting ran smoothly and will keep me updated with the recordings. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 7:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. -- 12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. It also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013 . Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda 06 August 2013 SCI Meeting: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 5. SCI charter revision (20 mins) 6. Working Group self assessment (15 mins) 7. AOB (5 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Aug 7 18:20:33 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:20:33 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Recommendation to move the next SCI meeting date from Sept 3rd to Sept 10th Message-ID: <004501ce939a$d070c0a0$715241e0$@rnapartners.com> Dear Committee Members, As the American Labor Day holiday weekend takes place from Aug 31st to Sept. 2nd, and some members may be traveling on Sept. 3rd, I would like to recommend that we move the next meeting to Sept. 10th. I welcome your thoughts/comments on this recommendation within the coming week. If no one is against this recommendation, I will ask Julia and Julie to make note of this change of date for our next meeting and to circulate the new date accordingly. Best wishes to all for the rest of the summer! Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julia Charvolen Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 18:27 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 6 August 2013 Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 September 2013 at 1900 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 19:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130806-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/# aug (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Mikey O'Connor - ISPCP - Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Primary Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - Vice-Chair Edward Morris - NCUC- Primary Nuno Garcia - NCUC - Alternate Ken Bour - guest speaker Apologies: Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Amr Elsadr - NCUC Alternate James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Julia Charvolen ** 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, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 6 August 2013: Marika Konings:Some WGs have been suffering from holiday fatigue Julie Hedlund:Please see the latest Self Assessment Survey at: http://www.questionpro.com/a/editSurvey.do?surveyID=3582146 Ken Bour:http://scitestwg.questionpro.com Julia Charvolen:Please mute your microphones for the echo if you are not speaking Avri Doria:Needs to include NCSG,s not all NCSG are either in NCUC or npoc NC Marika Konings:I am watching ;-) Ken Bour:Thanks, Avri Avri Doria:Just did it.it its ready for wider testing. Ken Bour:I will drop off and start work on the memo. Ron A:Thank you, Ken! Mike O'Connor:James Bladel sends regrets for the call today Julia Charvolen:Thank you Mikey , noted! Marika Konings:The PDP Manual is part of the GNSO Operating Procedures Marika Konings:Like the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Marika Konings:They should be consistent - a lot of work went into those ;-) Marika Konings:@Avri - are you suggesting that supermajority would apply for any changes to the operating procedures? Avri Doria:Currently I think just majority its required for OP procedure changes. Avri Doria:So, buy a majority we could downgrade a superiority condition Marika Konings:yes, simple majority currently applies Marika Konings:@Avri - sorry I misunderstood you. It may be helpful to work your example out as a use case? That may help inform the WG deliberations. Marika Konings:SCI /Council deliberations I mean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Aug 7 18:39:40 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:39:40 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Working Group Self-Assessment: Live Test In-Reply-To: <012301ce92ee$aca94810$05fbd830$@verizon.net> References: <012301ce92ee$aca94810$05fbd830$@verizon.net> Message-ID: <005501ce939d$7b5db390$72191ab0$@rnapartners.com> Thank you for this draft, Ken. I will be sending on 'officially' to Mikey shortly. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Bour Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 17:48 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Working Group Self-Assessment: Live Test SCI Members: As discussed on the conference call, below is a draft memo from Ron to Mikey requesting that he invite the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group (for which he is Chair) to help the SCI by testing the current version of the Working Group Self-Assessment questionnaire. Ken Bour Mikey: As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net . In particular, we are interested in learning: * Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? * Are the design and format straightforward? * Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? * Are the instructions clear? * Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? * Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? * Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff Chair-SCI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Aug 7 18:39:53 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:39:53 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Working Group Self-Assessment Test Message-ID: <005a01ce939d$83e89750$8bb9c5f0$@rnapartners.com> Dear Mikey, As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net . In particular, we are interested in learning: * Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? * Are the design and format straightforward? * Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? * Are the instructions clear? * Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? * Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? * Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Aug 7 18:48:21 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 18:48:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Recommendation to move the next SCI meeting date from Sept 3rd to Sept 10th In-Reply-To: <004501ce939a$d070c0a0$715241e0$@rnapartners.com> References: <004501ce939a$d070c0a0$715241e0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE77CC@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Thanks Ron. Agree this makes sense. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CE9364.03E931B0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:21 AM To: 'Julia Charvolen'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Recommendation to move the next SCI meeting date from Sept 3rd to Sept 10th Dear Committee Members, As the American Labor Day holiday weekend takes place from Aug 31st to Sept. 2nd, and some members may be traveling on Sept. 3rd, I would like to recommend that we move the next meeting to Sept. 10th. I welcome your thoughts/comments on this recommendation within the coming week. If no one is against this recommendation, I will ask Julia and Julie to make note of this change of date for our next meeting and to circulate the new date accordingly. Best wishes to all for the rest of the summer! Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julia Charvolen Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 18:27 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 6 August 2013 Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 September 2013 at 1900 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 at 19:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130806-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Primary ? Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate Mikey O?Connor ? ISPCP ? Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Primary Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary ? Vice-Chair Edward Morris - NCUC? Primary Nuno Garcia ? NCUC - Alternate Ken Bour ? guest speaker Apologies: Jennifer Wolfe ? NCA primary Amr Elsadr ? NCUC Alternate James Bladel ? Registrar Stakeholder Group ? Primary ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Julia Charvolen ** 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, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 6 August 2013: Marika Konings:Some WGs have been suffering from holiday fatigue Julie Hedlund:Please see the latest Self Assessment Survey at: http://www.questionpro.com/a/editSurvey.do?surveyID=3582146 Ken Bour:http://scitestwg.questionpro.com Julia Charvolen:Please mute your microphones for the echo if you are not speaking Avri Doria:Needs to include NCSG,s not all NCSG are either in NCUC or npoc NC Marika Konings:I am watching ;-) Ken Bour:Thanks, Avri Avri Doria:Just did it.it its ready for wider testing. Ken Bour:I will drop off and start work on the memo. Ron A:Thank you, Ken! Mike O'Connor:James Bladel sends regrets for the call today Julia Charvolen:Thank you Mikey , noted! Marika Konings:The PDP Manual is part of the GNSO Operating Procedures Marika Konings:Like the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Marika Konings:They should be consistent - a lot of work went into those ;-) Marika Konings:@Avri - are you suggesting that supermajority would apply for any changes to the operating procedures? Avri Doria:Currently I think just majority its required for OP procedure changes. Avri Doria:So, buy a majority we could downgrade a superiority condition Marika Konings:yes, simple majority currently applies Marika Konings:@Avri - sorry I misunderstood you. It may be helpful to work your example out as a use case? That may help inform the WG deliberations. Marika Konings:SCI /Council deliberations I mean ________________________________ 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 julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Aug 7 19:45:12 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:45:12 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Message-ID: Dear SCI members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter. Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the email?s contents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------ Begin Draft Message --------------------------------------- Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process based on feedback received from the Council. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible for the GNSO Council to consider for approval at its meeting in September. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Best regards, Ron Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Aug 7 19:53:01 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:53:01 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 06 August 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see below the actions from yesterday's SCI meeting. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013. Please also note Ron's recommendation via separate message to move the September meeting from 03 September to 10 September to avoid conflicts with the Labor Day holiday in the U.S. If there are no objections, we will move the meeting and send a notice accordingly. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions from 06 August Meeting 1. Working Group Self Assessment: The SCI will ask the Thick WHOIS Working Group to test the survey (DONE) 2. Re-Submission of a Motion: Keep on the agenda for the next meeting and request discussion on criteria number 3. 3. SCI Charter Revision: SCI Chair will ask the Council how to proceed on the Charter revisions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Aug 7 19:57:48 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:57:48 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, According to the actions from the meeting on 06 August, SCI members are requested to review again the text below for re-submitting a motion. In particular, members should consider criteria 3 and provide to the list for discussion their rationale for or against that option. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Aug 7 20:23:51 2013 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 20:23:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting In-Reply-To: <003a01ce9399$b5d270f0$217752d0$@rnapartners.com> References: <24B94F4F47C44CCFB8178471504914CD@WUKPC>,<003a01ce9399$b5d270f0$217752d0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <061E972A-663C-49A1-8928-45180F52E745@godaddy.com> Ron and Team: I must also tender my (belated) apologies for yesterday's call. I am on vacation this week, and the appointment reminder kicked off on my phone at a very inopportune moment. Hope to sync up during the next call. THanks- J. Sent from my iPad On Aug 7, 2013, at 13:13, "Ron Andruff" > wrote: Thanks for touching base, Wolf-Ulrich. Sorry to hear about your ill health. Get well soon. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 02:24 To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting All, sorry for having missed the call due to sickness. I hope the meeting ran smoothly and will keep me updated with the recordings. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 7:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. -- 12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. It also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda 06 August 2013 SCI Meeting: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 5. SCI charter revision (20 mins) 6. Working Group self assessment (15 mins) 7. AOB (5 mins) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Aug 7 20:26:18 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 20:26:18 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE7A28@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown here: At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CE9371.B2D3DE20] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Dear SCI members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter. Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the email?s contents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------ Begin Draft Message --------------------------------------- Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Best regards, Ron Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI ________________________________ 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 edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu Wed Aug 7 20:46:25 2013 From: edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:46:25 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE7A28@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE7A28@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the suggested revision Anne, which I believe reflects the discussion at our meeting yesterday, and which I fully support. Regards, Edward Morris Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown > here:**** > > ** ** > > At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further > revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is > clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and > Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do > so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI > members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group > of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter > and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the > Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the > charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In > either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised > Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in > this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate.**** > > ** ** > > Anne**** > > ** ** > > ****** > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese***** > > *Of Counsel***** > > *Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700***** > > *One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611***** > > *Map to Parking Garage > ***** > > *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.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM > *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan > Robinson > *Importance:* High**** > > ** ** > > Dear SCI members,**** > > ** ** > > As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a > message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council > Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter.**** > > ** ** > > Please respond by ***COB Wednesday, 14 August*** with any comments on the > draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the > email?s contents.**** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > ** ** > > Julie**** > > ** ** > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director **** > > ** ** > > ------------------ Begin Draft Message > ---------------------------------------**** > > Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter**** > > **** > > Dear Jonathan,**** > > **** > > I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at > its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting > yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and > decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the > Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, > based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council > would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the > Charter to reflect that role.**** > > **** > > Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for > decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making > Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this > issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to > share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also > offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially > required to operate under full consensus.**** > > **** > > At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further > revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is > clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and > Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do > so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI > members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group > of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter > and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the > Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the > charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In > either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised > Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in > this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate.**** > > **** > > We await your guidance.**** > > **** > > Best regards,**** > > **** > > Ron**** > > **** > > Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI**** > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 mike at haven2.com Thu Aug 8 12:56:06 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:56:06 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test In-Reply-To: <005a01ce939d$83e89750$8bb9c5f0$@rnapartners.com> References: <005a01ce939d$83e89750$8bb9c5f0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <5D2A116D-08AD-4B86-99FA-FCB0F1715BF5@haven2.com> thanks all, this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. mikey On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Mikey, > > As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling ?Working Group Self-Assessment.? Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. > > As the Chair of the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. > > Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. > > It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. > > How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI > The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members? experiences ? not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the ?Thick WHOIS? ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. > > In particular, we are interested in learning: > ? Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? > ? Are the design and format straightforward? > ? Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? > ? Are the instructions clear? > ? Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? > ? Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? > ? Are there any important elements of the Working Group?s operations that have been neglected? > > Thank you in advance for your WG?s involvement in testing this assessment instrument. > > Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI > > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ken.bour at verizon.net Thu Aug 8 22:54:30 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:54:30 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test Message-ID: <007401ce948a$3e8c41a0$bba4c4e0$@verizon.net> SCI Members: As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey's inquiry. Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. I agree with Mikey's observation that there is an advantage to being "done" with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. If the "Thick WHOIS" WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. Regards, Ken Bour From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test thanks all, this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. mikey On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: Dear Mikey, As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. In particular, we are interested in learning: . Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? . Are the design and format straightforward? . Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? . Are the instructions clear? . Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? . Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? . Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Thu Aug 8 23:25:09 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:25:09 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test In-Reply-To: <007401ce948a$3e8c41a0$bba4c4e0$@verizon.net> References: <007401ce948a$3e8c41a0$bba4c4e0$@verizon.net> Message-ID: <00B935A0-39BC-48E6-8E81-9C7F4E656A22@haven2.com> i'm game to go ahead w/the Thick Whois WG -- if Avri (fellow member) concurs that we're "done enough." m On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: > SCI Members: > > As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey?s inquiry? > > Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. > > I agree with Mikey?s observation that there is an advantage to being ?done? with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. > > If the ?Thick WHOIS? WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. > > Regards, > > Ken Bour > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour' > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test > > thanks all, > > this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). > > the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. > > the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. > > i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. > > mikey > > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: > > > Dear Mikey, > > As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling ?Working Group Self-Assessment.? Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. > > As the Chair of the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. > > Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. > > It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. > > How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI > The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members? experiences ? not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the ?Thick WHOIS? ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. > > In particular, we are interested in learning: > ? Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? > ? Are the design and format straightforward? > ? Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? > ? Are the instructions clear? > ? Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? > ? Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? > ? Are there any important elements of the Working Group?s operations that have been neglected? > > Thank you in advance for your WG?s involvement in testing this assessment instrument. > > Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI > > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Fri Aug 9 09:08:55 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 02:08:55 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test In-Reply-To: <00B935A0-39BC-48E6-8E81-9C7F4E656A22@haven2.com> Message-ID: Another Working Group that has just completed its tasks is the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Their Final Report was approved by the GNSO Council last week. Although the PDP officially got started under the old rules, the WG phase itself completely ran under the revised PDP rules. With best regards, Marika From: Mike O'Connor Date: Friday 9 August 2013 01:25 To: "ken.bour at verizon.net" Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Marika Konings Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test i'm game to go ahead w/the Thick Whois WG -- if Avri (fellow member) concurs that we're "done enough." m On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: > SCI Members: > > As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey?s > inquiry? > > Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, > rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that > we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. > > I agree with Mikey?s observation that there is an advantage to being ?done? > with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do > not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is > no other reasonable course of action available. > > If the ?Thick WHOIS? WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify > another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a > recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter > and the questionnaire for another team. > > Regards, > > Ken Bour > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour' > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test > > thanks all, > > this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* > or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well > before Argentina). > > the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. > > the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. > > i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're > in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. > > mikey > > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: > > > Dear Mikey, > > As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), > you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we > are calling ?Working Group Self-Assessment.? Delving back into the history of > the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned > that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; > however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. > The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such > as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups > are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs > and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. > > As the Chair of the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, we appreciate your > willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest > version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: > http://thickwhois.questionpro.com . All of > the background information and instructions are contained within the > instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an > invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. > > Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status > updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed > by any of your team members. > > It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as > though it were a real self-assessment for the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, > despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the > instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. > > How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI > The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members? > experiences ? not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with > a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a > separate page in the ?Thick WHOIS? ICANN Wiki space (Link: > https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag ) > where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept > emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to > submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at > ken.bour at verizon.net . > > In particular, we are interested in learning: > ? Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to > intent? > ? Are the design and format straightforward? > ? Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? > ? Are the instructions clear? > ? Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? > ? Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? > ? Are there any important elements of the Working Group?s operations > that have been neglected? > > Thank you in advance for your WG?s involvement in testing this assessment > instrument. > > Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI > > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com > , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, > LinkedIn, etc.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon Aug 12 07:07:38 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:07:38 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE7A28@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE7A28@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3C78001D83434C2890E117D6BE417310@WUKPC> All, since I could not attend the last call I can?t see a reason to ask the council whether they intend to take on the charter revision or not ? they definitely don?t like to do this work. The council shall only discuss what?s going to be suggested by the SCI, maybe alternate charter proposals re full consensus. There shall be ? hopefully ? an exchange on the council list following the Durban wrap-up. But it will take a little time since the action list has just been delivered and people are on holiday. The exchange could then been used as additional input for the SCI work. So my suggestion is to continue our SCI chartering work (on the basis that the SCI shall continue as ?standing?) and not pinging forward and backward with the voting question. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:26 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown here: At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Dear SCI members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter. Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the email?s contents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------ Begin Draft Message --------------------------------------- Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Best regards, Ron Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Aug 12 15:56:38 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:56:38 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3C78001D83434C2890E117D6BE417310@WUKPC> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE7A28@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <3C78001D83434C2890E117D6BE417310@WUKPC> Message-ID: <018d01ce9774$88baff40$9a30fdc0$@rnapartners.com> Thank you for this input, Wolf-Ulrich. Two things: 1. Can you advise as to when you think the open questions within Council and Jeff?s documentation will be reviewed and determinations made? 2. Can you add your edits to the draft letter that I will submit to the GNSO Council Chair? At this point, I think it is important that everyone understands clearly who is expected to do which activity so that the SCI can deal with this matter appropriately. Thank you very much. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 03:08 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson All, since I could not attend the last call I can?t see a reason to ask the council whether they intend to take on the charter revision or not ? they definitely don?t like to do this work. The council shall only discuss what?s going to be suggested by the SCI, maybe alternate charter proposals re full consensus. There shall be ? hopefully ? an exchange on the council list following the Durban wrap-up. But it will take a little time since the action list has just been delivered and people are on holiday. The exchange could then been used as additional input for the SCI work. So my suggestion is to continue our SCI chartering work (on the basis that the SCI shall continue as ?standing?) and not pinging forward and backward with the voting question. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:26 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown here: At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Dear SCI members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter. Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the email?s contents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------ Begin Draft Message --------------------------------------- Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Best regards, Ron Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI _____ 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: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Aug 12 15:59:50 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:59:50 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test In-Reply-To: References: <00B935A0-39BC-48E6-8E81-9C7F4E656A22@haven2.com> Message-ID: <019a01ce9774$fd50bb10$f7f23130$@rnapartners.com> Dear Mikey, At this point we are waiting on you and Avri to make your decision. Otherwise, if the committee members agree, we could alternatively approach the Locking of a Domain Name Working Group. Mikey? Avri? Please advise. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 05:09 To: Mike O'Connor; Ken Bour Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Marika Konings' Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test Another Working Group that has just completed its tasks is the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Their Final Report was approved by the GNSO Council last week. Although the PDP officially got started under the old rules, the WG phase itself completely ran under the revised PDP rules. With best regards, Marika From: Mike O'Connor > Date: Friday 9 August 2013 01:25 To: "ken.bour at verizon.net " > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " >, Marika Konings > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test i'm game to go ahead w/the Thick Whois WG -- if Avri (fellow member) concurs that we're "done enough." m On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Ken Bour" > wrote: SCI Members: As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey's inquiry. Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. I agree with Mikey's observation that there is an advantage to being "done" with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. If the "Thick WHOIS" WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. Regards, Ken Bour From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner- gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test thanks all, this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. mikey On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff < randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote: Dear Mikey, As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. In particular, we are interested in learning: . Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? . Are the design and format straightforward? . Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? . Are the instructions clear? . Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? . Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? . Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Mon Aug 12 16:03:42 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:03:42 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test In-Reply-To: <019a01ce9774$fd50bb10$f7f23130$@rnapartners.com> References: <00B935A0-39BC-48E6-8E81-9C7F4E656A22@haven2.com> <019a01ce9774$fd50bb10$f7f23130$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <35A9317E-E05F-4AEC-ABDF-B5B201AB366B@haven2.com> i kinda like the idea of approaching the Locking group -- they're definitely a bit more done that we are. m On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Ron Andruff" wrote: > Dear Mikey, > > At this point we are waiting on you and Avri to make your decision. Otherwise, if the committee members agree, we could alternatively approach the Locking of a Domain Name Working Group. > > Mikey? Avri? Please advise. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 05:09 > To: Mike O'Connor; Ken Bour > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Marika Konings' > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test > > Another Working Group that has just completed its tasks is the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Their Final Report was approved by the GNSO Council last week. Although the PDP officially got started under the old rules, the WG phase itself completely ran under the revised PDP rules. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > From: Mike O'Connor > Date: Friday 9 August 2013 01:25 > To: "ken.bour at verizon.net" > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Marika Konings > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test > > i'm game to go ahead w/the Thick Whois WG -- if Avri (fellow member) concurs that we're "done enough." > > m > > On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: > > > SCI Members: > > As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey?s inquiry? > > Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. > > I agree with Mikey?s observation that there is an advantage to being ?done? with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. > > If the ?Thick WHOIS? WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. > > Regards, > > Ken Bour > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour' > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test > > thanks all, > > this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). > > the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. > > the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. > > i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. > > mikey > > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: > > > > Dear Mikey, > > As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling ?Working Group Self-Assessment.? Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. > > As the Chair of the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. > > Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. > > It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. > > How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI > The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members? experiences ? not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the ?Thick WHOIS? ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. > > In particular, we are interested in learning: > ? Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? > ? Are the design and format straightforward? > ? Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? > ? Are the instructions clear? > ? Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? > ? Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? > ? Are there any important elements of the Working Group?s operations that have been neglected? > > Thank you in advance for your WG?s involvement in testing this assessment instrument. > > Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI > > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Mon Aug 12 17:20:52 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:20:52 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <018d01ce9774$88baff40$9a30fdc0$@rnapartners.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE7A28@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <3C78001D83434C2890E117D6BE417310@WUKPC> <018d01ce9774$88baff40$9a30fdc0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DEF808@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Ron, I thought Wolf-Ulrich was saying ?do not send a letter to Council? and saying we should just keep working on our Charter and our own recommendations as to the full consensus issue. This approach makes sense to me. Wolf, is that what you were saying? Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CE9745.9F1F0170] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:57 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Thank you for this input, Wolf-Ulrich. Two things: 1. Can you advise as to when you think the open questions within Council and Jeff?s documentation will be reviewed and determinations made? 2. Can you add your edits to the draft letter that I will submit to the GNSO Council Chair? At this point, I think it is important that everyone understands clearly who is expected to do which activity so that the SCI can deal with this matter appropriately. Thank you very much. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 03:08 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson All, since I could not attend the last call I can?t see a reason to ask the council whether they intend to take on the charter revision or not ? they definitely don?t like to do this work. The council shall only discuss what?s going to be suggested by the SCI, maybe alternate charter proposals re full consensus. There shall be ? hopefully ? an exchange on the council list following the Durban wrap-up. But it will take a little time since the action list has just been delivered and people are on holiday. The exchange could then been used as additional input for the SCI work. So my suggestion is to continue our SCI chartering work (on the basis that the SCI shall continue as ?standing?) and not pinging forward and backward with the voting question. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:26 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown here: At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CE9745.9F1F0170] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Dear SCI members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter. Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the email?s contents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------ Begin Draft Message --------------------------------------- Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Best regards, Ron Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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 AAikman at lrlaw.com Mon Aug 12 17:22:47 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:22:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test In-Reply-To: <35A9317E-E05F-4AEC-ABDF-B5B201AB366B@haven2.com> References: <00B935A0-39BC-48E6-8E81-9C7F4E656A22@haven2.com> <019a01ce9774$fd50bb10$f7f23130$@rnapartners.com> <35A9317E-E05F-4AEC-ABDF-B5B201AB366B@haven2.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DF0236@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> I agree with Mikey ? this makes sense. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CE9745.E3B06950] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:04 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'Marika Konings'; 'Ken Bour'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test i kinda like the idea of approaching the Locking group -- they're definitely a bit more done that we are. m On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Ron Andruff" > wrote: Dear Mikey, At this point we are waiting on you and Avri to make your decision. Otherwise, if the committee members agree, we could alternatively approach the Locking of a Domain Name Working Group. Mikey? Avri? Please advise. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 05:09 To: Mike O'Connor; Ken Bour Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Marika Konings' Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test Another Working Group that has just completed its tasks is the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Their Final Report was approved by the GNSO Council last week. Although the PDP officially got started under the old rules, the WG phase itself completely ran under the revised PDP rules. With best regards, Marika From: Mike O'Connor > Date: Friday 9 August 2013 01:25 To: "ken.bour at verizon.net" > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Marika Konings > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test i'm game to go ahead w/the Thick Whois WG -- if Avri (fellow member) concurs that we're "done enough." m On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Ken Bour" > wrote: SCI Members: As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey?s inquiry? Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. I agree with Mikey?s observation that there is an advantage to being ?done? with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. If the ?Thick WHOIS? WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. Regards, Ken Bour From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test thanks all, this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. mikey On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff > wrote: Dear Mikey, As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling ?Working Group Self-Assessment.? Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members? experiences ? not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the ?Thick WHOIS? ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. In particular, we are interested in learning: ? Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? ? Are the design and format straightforward? ? Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? ? Are the instructions clear? ? Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? ? Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? ? Are there any important elements of the Working Group?s operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG?s involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) ________________________________ 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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon Aug 12 17:54:43 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:54:43 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DEF808@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DE7A28@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <3C78001D83434C2890E117D6BE417310@WUKPC> <018d01ce9774$88baff40$9a30fdc0$@rnapartners.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD981DEF808@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne and Ron, yes, I?m not really convinced that we should send a letter to the council at this stage. We can?t expect substantial input. And therefore I think it may be more productive to put our (alternative) suggestions to the table. Re Jeffs ?documentation? nothing happened so far. I think he?s going to be triggered through the action list. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 7:20 PM To: 'Ron Andruff' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Ron, I thought Wolf-Ulrich was saying ?do not send a letter to Council? and saying we should just keep working on our Charter and our own recommendations as to the full consensus issue. This approach makes sense to me. Wolf, is that what you were saying? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:57 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Thank you for this input, Wolf-Ulrich. Two things: 1. Can you advise as to when you think the open questions within Council and Jeff?s documentation will be reviewed and determinations made? 2. Can you add your edits to the draft letter that I will submit to the GNSO Council Chair? At this point, I think it is important that everyone understands clearly who is expected to do which activity so that the SCI can deal with this matter appropriately. Thank you very much. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 03:08 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson All, since I could not attend the last call I can?t see a reason to ask the council whether they intend to take on the charter revision or not ? they definitely don?t like to do this work. The council shall only discuss what?s going to be suggested by the SCI, maybe alternate charter proposals re full consensus. There shall be ? hopefully ? an exchange on the council list following the Durban wrap-up. But it will take a little time since the action list has just been delivered and people are on holiday. The exchange could then been used as additional input for the SCI work. So my suggestion is to continue our SCI chartering work (on the basis that the SCI shall continue as ?standing?) and not pinging forward and backward with the voting question. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:26 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown here: At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Dear SCI members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter. Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the email?s contents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------ Begin Draft Message --------------------------------------- Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Best regards, Ron Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: From avri at acm.org Mon Aug 12 21:17:38 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:17:38 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Working Group Self-Assessment Test In-Reply-To: <019a01ce9774$fd50bb10$f7f23130$@rnapartners.com> References: <00B935A0-39BC-48E6-8E81-9C7F4E656A22@haven2.com> <019a01ce9774$fd50bb10$f7f23130$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <923FDC7A-A2C0-45D8-8CF8-E9F724FB7F51@acm.org> Hi, I thought I had already conveyed my comfort with the idea of introducing the test into the Whois group. Then again I have been traveling a bunch and was having problems sending email at time. In any case, I am fine with whatever real WG we decide to further test the prototype questionnaire. avri On 12 Aug 2013, at 11:59, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Mikey, > > At this point we are waiting on you and Avri to make your decision. Otherwise, if the committee members agree, we could alternatively approach the Locking of a Domain Name Working Group. > > Mikey? Avri? Please advise. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 05:09 > To: Mike O'Connor; Ken Bour > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Marika Konings' > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test > > Another Working Group that has just completed its tasks is the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Their Final Report was approved by the GNSO Council last week. Although the PDP officially got started under the old rules, the WG phase itself completely ran under the revised PDP rules. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > From: Mike O'Connor > Date: Friday 9 August 2013 01:25 > To: "ken.bour at verizon.net" > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Marika Konings > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test > > i'm game to go ahead w/the Thick Whois WG -- if Avri (fellow member) concurs that we're "done enough." > > m > > On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: > > > SCI Members: > > As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey?s inquiry? > > Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. > > I agree with Mikey?s observation that there is an advantage to being ?done? with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. > > If the ?Thick WHOIS? WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. > > Regards, > > Ken Bour > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM > To: Ron Andruff > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour' > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test > > thanks all, > > this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). > > the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. > > the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. > > i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. > > mikey > > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: > > > > Dear Mikey, > > As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling ?Working Group Self-Assessment.? Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. > > As the Chair of the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. > > Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. > > It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. > > How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI > The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members? experiences ? not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the ?Thick WHOIS? ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. > > In particular, we are interested in learning: > ? Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? > ? Are the design and format straightforward? > ? Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? > ? Are the instructions clear? > ? Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? > ? Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? > ? Are there any important elements of the Working Group?s operations that have been neglected? > > Thank you in advance for your WG?s involvement in testing this assessment instrument. > > Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI > > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) From mike at haven2.com Mon Aug 12 21:23:30 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:23:30 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Working Group Self-Assessment Test In-Reply-To: <923FDC7A-A2C0-45D8-8CF8-E9F724FB7F51@acm.org> References: <00B935A0-39BC-48E6-8E81-9C7F4E656A22@haven2.com> <019a01ce9774$fd50bb10$f7f23130$@rnapartners.com> <923FDC7A-A2C0-45D8-8CF8-E9F724FB7F51@acm.org> Message-ID: <782FC687-ED3B-406A-A2D7-E6294268BDC3@haven2.com> ah. in that case, maybe Thick Whois is best. there's a fair amount of the evaluation that reflects on the Chair and i'd prefer to avoid inflicting that embarrassment on somebody else during this trial run. i'll go ahead and send the note to the WG once i'm finished with the current In Transit mode. thanks Avri, mikey On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I thought I had already conveyed my comfort with the idea of introducing the test into the Whois group. Then again I have been traveling a bunch and was having problems sending email at time. > > In any case, I am fine with whatever real WG we decide to further test the prototype questionnaire. > > avri > > > > On 12 Aug 2013, at 11:59, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> Dear Mikey, >> >> At this point we are waiting on you and Avri to make your decision. Otherwise, if the committee members agree, we could alternatively approach the Locking of a Domain Name Working Group. >> >> Mikey? Avri? Please advise. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> www.rnapartners.com >> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings >> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 05:09 >> To: Mike O'Connor; Ken Bour >> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Marika Konings' >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test >> >> Another Working Group that has just completed its tasks is the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Their Final Report was approved by the GNSO Council last week. Although the PDP officially got started under the old rules, the WG phase itself completely ran under the revised PDP rules. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> From: Mike O'Connor >> Date: Friday 9 August 2013 01:25 >> To: "ken.bour at verizon.net" >> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Marika Konings >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test >> >> i'm game to go ahead w/the Thick Whois WG -- if Avri (fellow member) concurs that we're "done enough." >> >> m >> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: >> >> >> SCI Members: >> >> As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey?s inquiry? >> >> Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. >> >> I agree with Mikey?s observation that there is an advantage to being ?done? with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. >> >> If the ?Thick WHOIS? WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ken Bour >> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor >> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM >> To: Ron Andruff >> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Ken Bour' >> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test >> >> thanks all, >> >> this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). >> >> the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. >> >> the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. >> >> i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Mikey, >> >> As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling ?Working Group Self-Assessment.? Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. >> >> As the Chair of the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. >> >> Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. >> >> It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the ?Thick WHOIS? Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. >> >> How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI >> The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members? experiences ? not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the ?Thick WHOIS? ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour at verizon.net. >> >> In particular, we are interested in learning: >> ? Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? >> ? Are the design and format straightforward? >> ? Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? >> ? Are the instructions clear? >> ? Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? >> ? Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? >> ? Are there any important elements of the Working Group?s operations that have been neglected? >> >> Thank you in advance for your WG?s involvement in testing this assessment instrument. >> >> Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI >> >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> www.rnapartners.com >> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon Aug 19 07:11:49 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:11:49 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FYI Message-ID: Look at gnso.icann.org/en/ where Jonathan made reference to the SCI role Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Tue Aug 20 08:35:39 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:35:39 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Message-ID: <4F634952826046C19C9BC8A35785E443@WUKPC> All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The ?historical? information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method ? WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself ? the SCI as an ongoing working institution ? was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Aug 27 07:58:40 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 03:58:40 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role In-Reply-To: <4F634952826046C19C9BC8A35785E443@WUKPC> References: <4F634952826046C19C9BC8A35785E443@WUKPC> Message-ID: <005d01cea2fb$41e12c10$c5a38430$@rnapartners.com> Dear All, Based upon Wolf-Ulrich?s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) Anne?s contribution. Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The ?historical? information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method ? WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself ? the SCI as an ongoing working institution ? was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Aug 28 07:44:56 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:44:56 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role In-Reply-To: <470f61ccbd0c4f38b084e54d16a3a83e@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <4F634952826046C19C9BC8A35785E443@WUKPC> <005d01cea2fb$41e12c10$c5a38430$@rnapartners.com> <470f61ccbd0c4f38b084e54d16a3a83e@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <3385380B87844D6C9F39C596D3426C53@WUKPC> I?d support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council members? understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM To: Ron Andruff ; 'WUKnoben' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi everyone, I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am looking forward to our call next week. I agree it is appropriate to send a letter to Jonathan regarding the SCI?s position in order to best frame the discussion during the GNSO call. My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt there should or shouldn?t be full consensus to help guide the discussion for the Council. For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus was that it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points of view and work to find stronger outcomes. The SCI has the luxury of not working under any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather than substantive issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the group more time to really find a better outcome. On the flip side, I believe the argument against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need. This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned that if we don?t provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon our meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent discussing this issue. I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI. With kindest regards, Jennifer jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM To: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Dear All, Based upon Wolf-Ulrich?s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) Anne?s contribution. Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The ?historical? information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method ? WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself ? the SCI as an ongoing working institution ? was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Aug 28 07:50:02 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:50:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role In-Reply-To: <3385380B87844D6C9F39C596D3426C53@WUKPC> References: <4F634952826046C19C9BC8A35785E443@WUKPC> <005d01cea2fb$41e12c10$c5a38430$@rnapartners.com> <470f61ccbd0c4f38b084e54d16a3a83e@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <3385380B87844D6C9F39C596D3426C53@WUKPC> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9869A787A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> I agree with Wolf Ulrich and Jennifer regarding this. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CEA388.8777FAF0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:45 AM To: Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role I?d support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council members? understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM To: Ron Andruff ; 'WUKnoben' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi everyone, I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am looking forward to our call next week. I agree it is appropriate to send a letter to Jonathan regarding the SCI?s position in order to best frame the discussion during the GNSO call. My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt there should or shouldn?t be full consensus to help guide the discussion for the Council. For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus was that it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points of view and work to find stronger outcomes. The SCI has the luxury of not working under any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather than substantive issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the group more time to really find a better outcome. On the flip side, I believe the argument against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need. This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned that if we don?t provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon our meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent discussing this issue. I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI. With kindest regards, Jennifer jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM To: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Dear All, Based upon Wolf-Ulrich?s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) Anne?s contribution. Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The ?historical? information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method ? WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself ? the SCI as an ongoing working institution ? was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From ngarcia at ngarcia.net Wed Aug 28 10:03:18 2013 From: ngarcia at ngarcia.net (Nuno Garcia) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:03:18 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9869A787A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <4F634952826046C19C9BC8A35785E443@WUKPC> <005d01cea2fb$41e12c10$c5a38430$@rnapartners.com> <470f61ccbd0c4f38b084e54d16a3a83e@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <3385380B87844D6C9F39C596D3426C53@WUKPC> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9869A787A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi all. I'm new do SCI, so I'm still catching up on things. I also agree on the approach proposed by previous emails. I would also like to add something to the discussion: proposals submitted in a full consensus framework are likely to be different from proposals submitted in a WG model framework. This is, if the SCI chooses to change the approval method to the WG model, we can expect different types of subjects being presented. Warm regards, Nuno M. Garcia, *Ph.D.* *Assistant Professor, UBI, Covilh?, Portugal* *Invited Associate Professor, ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal* Av. da Anil, n? 2, 1? Esq. 6200-502 Covilh? Portugal mobile: +351 912 552 009 Skype: nunomgarcia web .................: http://www.di.ubi.pt/~ngarcia research lab .....: http://allab.it.ubi.pt Cisco Academy : http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt On 28 August 2013 08:50, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > I agree with Wolf Ulrich and Jennifer regarding this.**** > > Anne**** > > ** ** > > ****** > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese***** > > *Of Counsel***** > > *Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700***** > > *One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611***** > > *Map to Parking Garage > ***** > > *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.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:45 AM > *To:* Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role**** > > ** ** > > I?d support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council > members? understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council > discussion.**** > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich**** > > **** > > *From:* Jen Wolfe **** > > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM**** > > *To:* Ron Andruff ; 'WUKnoben'; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org **** > > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role**** > > **** > > Hi everyone,**** > > **** > > I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am > looking forward to our call next week. I agree it is appropriate to send a > letter to Jonathan regarding the SCI?s position in order to best frame the > discussion during the GNSO call. **** > > **** > > My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt > there should or shouldn?t be full consensus to help guide the discussion > for the Council. For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus > was that it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points > of view and work to find stronger outcomes. The SCI has the luxury of not > working under any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather > than substantive issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the > group more time to really find a better outcome. On the flip side, I > believe the argument against full consensus included concerns about > potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in > the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on > procedure/process to meet an immediate need.**** > > **** > > This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned > that if we don?t provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon > our meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent > discussing this issue. **** > > **** > > I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI.**** > > **** > > With kindest regards,**** > > **** > > Jennifer**** > > **** > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB***** > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm* > *** > > managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual > property law firm**** > > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012***** > > *Follow Me:** **[image: Description: Description: Description: > Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* > * **[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* * > **[image: Description: Description: Description: Description: > cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* **** > > *Follow My Blog ***** > > *Domain Names Rewired > ***** > > **** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ron Andruff > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM > *To:* 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role**** > > **** > > Dear All,**** > > **** > > Based upon Wolf-Ulrich?s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the > next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter > discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. > The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) > Anne?s contribution.**** > > **** > > Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the > letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. **** > > **** > > Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter**** > > **** > > Dear Jonathan,**** > > **** > > I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter > revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its > meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from > the GNSO Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to > seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps > for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it > seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a > 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role.**** > > **** > > Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for > decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making > Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this > issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to > share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand > that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was > initially required to operate under full consensus.**** > > **** > > At the August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further > revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is > clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and > Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do > so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI > members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group > of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter > and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the > Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the > charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In > either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised > Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in > this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate.**** > > **** > > We await your guidance.**** > > **** > > Kind regards,**** > > **** > > Ron**** > > **** > > **** > > Thank you.**** > > **** > > Kind regards,**** > > **** > > RA**** > > **** > > *Ron Andruff* > > *RNA Partners* > > *www.rnapartners.com* * * > > **** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 > *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role**** > > **** > > All.**** > > **** > > the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role > as intended from the Durban meeting. The ?historical? information to be > provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the > understanding of where the SCI comes from.**** > > If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting > on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare > some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list.**** > > **** > > To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method ? > WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and > cons would be helpful.**** > > The role itself ? the SCI as an ongoing working institution ? was not > objected by the council. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich**** > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Aug 28 18:01:44 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:01:44 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Message-ID: <00a801cea418$ab8a48e0$029edaa0$@rnapartners.com> Dear all, Welcome Nuno, and thank you for your comments on this thread. I, too, feel that providing more background to the Council would serve both them and the SCI, and have thus drafted a revised letter to Jonathan, which I have attached and pasted below for your review. I have taken into account both Anne and Jennifer?s comments and hopefully captured that which they, and Wolf-Ulrich, are looking for. Recognizing time is short, I welcome your soonest comments/amendments. Thank you in advance for your soonest response. Kind regards, RA Subject: SCI Charter Revision Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Sessions in Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful to more formally seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. One aspect, in particular, based on the discussion in Durban, seems clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee'. We would like the Charter to reflect that, should that indeed be the case. At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for decision-making (?full consensus? versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the SCI?s August 6th meeting and since then on our mailing list members expressed an interest in helping guide the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel there should or should not be full consensus. The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using ?full or unanimous consensus? or ?rough or near consensus? came from my request, as in-coming SCI Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki since the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated. I also noted at the time, and do so here again for Council?s edification, the SCI Charter is further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within the SCI came in two forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to unanimous consensus ?improves our product? because it ensures that the Committee dedicates the time to explore all points of view and works to find stronger outcomes; the arguments against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need, or that any member choosing to remain steadfast in opposition could capture the SCI process. All SCI members however respect that balanced discussions result in consensus ? in some form ? leading to better appreciation of each member?s contributions, more confidence in the Committee itself and in the process. The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent defined in the Guidelines, ?rough or near consent? (defined as ?a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree?) immediately follows ?full or unanimous consent?. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN?s inception. ?Near consensus?, provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group?s position, while it also provides for written rationale entered into the public record for any and all dissenting opinion(s), thus providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it coming to its own determinations. Notably, the SCI does not make any determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council, which, in turn, it discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems appropriate. On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform your discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the Council on the Charter and consensus issues, if so requested. We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the SCI Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nuno Garcia Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 06:03 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: WUKnoben; Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi all. I'm new do SCI, so I'm still catching up on things. I also agree on the approach proposed by previous emails. I would also like to add something to the discussion: proposals submitted in a full consensus framework are likely to be different from proposals submitted in a WG model framework. This is, if the SCI chooses to change the approval method to the WG model, we can expect different types of subjects being presented. Warm regards, Nuno M. Garcia, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, UBI, Covilh?, Portugal Invited Associate Professor, ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal Av. da Anil, n? 2, 1? Esq. 6200-502 Covilh? Portugal mobile: +351 912 552 009 Skype: nunomgarcia web .................: http://www.di.ubi.pt/~ngarcia research lab .....: http://allab.it.ubi.pt Cisco Academy : http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt On 28 August 2013 08:50, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: I agree with Wolf Ulrich and Jennifer regarding this. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:45 AM To: Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role I?d support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council members? understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM To: Ron Andruff ; 'WUKnoben' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi everyone, I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am looking forward to our call next week. I agree it is appropriate to send a letter to Jonathan regarding the SCI?s position in order to best frame the discussion during the GNSO call. My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt there should or shouldn?t be full consensus to help guide the discussion for the Council. For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus was that it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points of view and work to find stronger outcomes. The SCI has the luxury of not working under any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather than substantive issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the group more time to really find a better outcome. On the flip side, I believe the argument against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need. This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned that if we don?t provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon our meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent discussing this issue. I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI. With kindest regards, Jennifer jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM To: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Dear All, Based upon Wolf-Ulrich?s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) Anne?s contribution. Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The ?historical? information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method ? WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself ? the SCI as an ongoing working institution ? was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ltr to Council Chair re SCI Charter vRA2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16523 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Aug 28 18:19:08 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:19:08 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair In-Reply-To: <00a801cea418$ab8a48e0$029edaa0$@rnapartners.com> References: <00a801cea418$ab8a48e0$029edaa0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9869AADBF@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Ron, the letter seems good except that it appears to me SCI can work on the Charter revisions, which are almost done as I understand it, without waiting for the GNSO to determine where it stands on the full consensus issue. The last paragraph seems to imply that SCI will wait to do this work until after GNSO advises the appropriate level of consensus for SCI. I personally do not see why we would wait on this. We can leave this section open in the revised Charter. I would expect discussion beyond the upcoming Council meeting on the consensus issue and I am loathe to stop our Charter revision work when it is clear that GNSO wants SCI to continue and there is no dispute on this point. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CEA3E0.69BB56D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02 AM To: 'Nuno Garcia'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Dear all, Welcome Nuno, and thank you for your comments on this thread. I, too, feel that providing more background to the Council would serve both them and the SCI, and have thus drafted a revised letter to Jonathan, which I have attached and pasted below for your review. I have taken into account both Anne and Jennifer?s comments and hopefully captured that which they, and Wolf-Ulrich, are looking for. Recognizing time is short, I welcome your soonest comments/amendments. Thank you in advance for your soonest response. Kind regards, RA Subject: SCI Charter Revision Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Sessions in Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful to more formally seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. One aspect, in particular, based on the discussion in Durban, seems clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee'. We would like the Charter to reflect that, should that indeed be the case. At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for decision-making (?full consensus? versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the SCI?s August 6th meeting and since then on our mailing list members expressed an interest in helping guide the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel there should or should not be full consensus. The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using ?full or unanimous consensus? or ?rough or near consensus? came from my request, as in-coming SCI Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki since the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated. I also noted at the time, and do so here again for Council?s edification, the SCI Charter is further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within the SCI came in two forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to unanimous consensus ?improves our product? because it ensures that the Committee dedicates the time to explore all points of view and works to find stronger outcomes; the arguments against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need, or that any member choosing to remain steadfast in opposition could capture the SCI process. All SCI members however respect that balanced discussions result in consensus ? in some form ? leading to better appreciation of each member?s contributions, more confidence in the Committee itself and in the process. The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent defined in the Guidelines, ?rough or near consent? (defined as ?a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree?) immediately follows ?full or unanimous consent?. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN?s inception. ?Near consensus?, provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group?s position, while it also provides for written rationale entered into the public record for any and all dissenting opinion(s), thus providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it coming to its own determinations. Notably, the SCI does not make any determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council, which, in turn, it discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems appropriate. On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform your discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the Council on the Charter and consensus issues, if so requested. We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the SCI Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nuno Garcia Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 06:03 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: WUKnoben; Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi all. I'm new do SCI, so I'm still catching up on things. I also agree on the approach proposed by previous emails. I would also like to add something to the discussion: proposals submitted in a full consensus framework are likely to be different from proposals submitted in a WG model framework. This is, if the SCI chooses to change the approval method to the WG model, we can expect different types of subjects being presented. Warm regards, Nuno M. Garcia, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, UBI, Covilh?, Portugal Invited Associate Professor, ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal Av. da Anil, n? 2, 1? Esq. 6200-502 Covilh? Portugal mobile: +351 912 552 009 Skype: nunomgarcia web .................: http://www.di.ubi.pt/~ngarcia research lab .....: http://allab.it.ubi.pt Cisco Academy : http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt On 28 August 2013 08:50, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: I agree with Wolf Ulrich and Jennifer regarding this. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01CEA3E0.69BB56D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:45 AM To: Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role I?d support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council members? understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM To: Ron Andruff ; 'WUKnoben' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi everyone, I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am looking forward to our call next week. I agree it is appropriate to send a letter to Jonathan regarding the SCI?s position in order to best frame the discussion during the GNSO call. My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt there should or shouldn?t be full consensus to help guide the discussion for the Council. For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus was that it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points of view and work to find stronger outcomes. The SCI has the luxury of not working under any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather than substantive issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the group more time to really find a better outcome. On the flip side, I believe the argument against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need. This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned that if we don?t provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon our meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent discussing this issue. I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI. With kindest regards, Jennifer jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM To: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Dear All, Based upon Wolf-Ulrich?s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) Anne?s contribution. Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The ?historical? information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method ? WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself ? the SCI as an ongoing working institution ? was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: