[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New SCI Task

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear SCI members,

Attached is a background paper on the issue described below.  This also is
posted to the wiki on the page for the 17 December meeting at the top of the
list of items for review at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/17+December+2013.

This issue is on the agenda for the 17 December meeting and staff will
provide a brief update on it.

Best regards,
Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

From:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date:  Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:22 PM
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New SCI Task

Dear SCI members,

I should have mentioned at yesterday's meeting that the GNSO Council
assigned a new task to the SCI at its meeting in Buenos Aires.  It was
passed as part of the consent agenda at the Council meeting on 20 November.
Here is the text: "'The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Standing Committee on
Improvements Implementation (SCI) to review the current consensus levels
defined and described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, and specifically
requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend revised or
additional language to apply to situations where working groups may reach
sufficient consensus against a particular proposal such that the appropriate
consensus level cannot accurately be described as No Consensus/Divergence')"
You can see it on the consent agenda at:
http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/agenda-gnso-coun
cil-20nov13-en.  The transcript is available at:
http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/agenda-gnso-coun
cil-20nov13-en and the discussion is on page 4.  I've also extracted it
below.

Staff will provide a background paper on this issue following the format in
the SCI Charter, as we did with the two recently added SCI tasks (email
voting and waivers).

Best regards,
Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Excerpt from the Transcript:

Jonathan Robinson: "Item 3, we move on this to the consent agenda. And here
we have an item that came out of -- has been removed and came out of the
second motion on our agenda today. And this derives from the work of the
working group on IGO, INGO names where there was some discussion about the
adequacy of the consensus levels within the working group and a requirement
to refer these -- or a request to refer these to the standing committee --
the GNSO Council standing committee on improvements implementation.  We have
discussed this both during the course of our weekend sessions and in the
interim. And it seemed that there was no opposition to this referral. And,
therefore, it has ended up on the consent agenda.  So can I just check that
there are no objections to this item being on the consent agenda? Any
comment? Any input? Seeing none, we will move on. And that is -- and we will
proceed, then, to act according to that recommendation and refer this item
to the standing committee on improvements implementation."




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20131209/05c3526c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Background on GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 131920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20131209/05c3526c/BackgroundonGNSOWorkingGroupGuidelinesConsensusLevels.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20131209/05c3526c/smime.p7s>