[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role

[Ron Andruff]

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

 <http://www.rnapartners.com> 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130827/87c3dfa0/attachment.html>