[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role

Wed Aug 28 10:03:18 UTC 2013

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, Covilhã, Portugal*
*Invited Associate Professor, ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal*

Av. da Anil, nº 2, 1º Esq.
6200-502 Covilhã
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 <AAikman at lrlaw.com> 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<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 *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 <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com> ****
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM****
>
> *To:* Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com> ; 'WUKnoben'<wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>;
> 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]*<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>
> * **[image: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>*
> **[image: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* <https://twitter.com/jenwolfe> ****
>
> *Follow My Blog <http://www.jenwolfe.com/blog>*****
>
> *Domain Names Rewired<http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312627>
> *****
>
>  ****
>
> *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* <http://www.rnapartners.com>* *
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [
> mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<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* <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/20130828/f6ecb483/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130828/f6ecb483/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 484 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130828/f6ecb483/image003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130828/f6ecb483/image004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130828/f6ecb483/image002.png>