[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson

Wed Aug 7 20:46:25 UTC 2013

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 <AAikman at lrlaw.com>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<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lewis+and+Roca+Tucson&gl=us&hl=en&sll=32.221762,-110.949424&sspn=0.006295,0.055067&ie=UTF8&view=map&cid=11847041291150279960&hq=lewis+and+roca+tucson&hnear=&ll=32.221951,-110.971892&spn=0.013524,0.019205&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A>
> *****
>
> *Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725*****
>
> *AAikman at LRLaw.com** • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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* <http://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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130807/30d62f43/attachment.html>