[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair
Aikman-Scalese, Anne
AAikman at lrlaw.com
Wed Aug 28 18:19:08 UTC 2013
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<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<mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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<http://www.rnapartners.com>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]<mailto:[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<mailto: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, Covilhã, Portugal
Invited Associate Professor, ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal
Av. da Anil, nº 2, 1º Esq.
6200-502 Covilhã
Portugal
mobile: +351 912 552 009<tel:%2B351%20912%20552%20009>
Skype: nunomgarcia
web .................: http://www.di.ubi.pt/~ngarcia
research lab .....: http://allab.it.ubi.pt<http://allab.it.ubi.pt/>
Cisco Academy : http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt<http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt/>
On 28 August 2013 08:50, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com>> 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<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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM
To: Ron Andruff<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com> ; 'WUKnoben'<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto: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] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe> [Description: Description: Description: Description: cid:image002.png at 01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/> [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> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org]<mailto:[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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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.
________________________________
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/20130828/61e014e7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3225 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130828/61e014e7/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130828/61e014e7/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 484 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130828/61e014e7/image003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130828/61e014e7/image004.png>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list