From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Mon Jul  1 17:49:53 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:49:53 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter -- Latest Version from Mickey
Message-ID: <CDF73981.13D7E%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

All,

For reference for our discussion tomorrow, please see the latest version of
the SCI Charter that includes the suggested edits from Mickey.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130701/dea93e20/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Charter Revisions - narrow.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 43520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130701/dea93e20/SCICharterRevisions-narrow.doc>
-------------- 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/20130701/dea93e20/smime.p7s>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Mon Jul  1 17:51:13 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:51:13 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
In-Reply-To: <CDD3C6DA.12E7F%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CDF739A7.13D80%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

As discussed on our 04 June call, we will continue discussion on
re-submission of a motion at our meeting tomorrow, 02 July.  There was
agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see
comments from Anne and James in their emails below).

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:
 
Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):
 
1)  Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no
later than the deadline for submitting a motion --  8 days prior to  the
next GNSO Council meeting.
2)  Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the
deadline for submitting a motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council
meeting.
3)  Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for
placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda.
4)  Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken
off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept
the re-submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com> >
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM
To: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>
>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com> >,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> "
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> >
Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford at web.com <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>
>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI
Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion
 
Ron,
I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC
agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high
level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.
 
Anne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 James M.
Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To:
gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re:
Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance:
High
 
Hello SCI Team:
 
Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue.  We can report that RrSG members
strongly favor Option #2.
 
Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except-
for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are
followed.  Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some
limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may
be re-introduced.
 
We look forward to further discussions on our next call.
 
Thanks--
 
J.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130701/003843cb/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130701/003843cb/smime.p7s>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Mon Jul  1 17:58:56 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:58:56 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for July Meeting
In-Reply-To: <CDD4BBB7.12F0E%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CDF73ACC.13D86%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

Please see below the proposed agenda for the July meeting for your review.
It also is posted to the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2+July+2013.  As noted in the
recent meeting reminder, the meeting is scheduled for  Tuesday 2 July 2013
at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. -- 12:00 PST , 15:00 EST,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Proposed Agenda July 2013 SCI Meeting:

1.  Roll call (1 min)
2.  Statements of Interest (2 min)
3.  Approval of the agenda (2 min)
4.  Re-submitting a motion (15 mins)
5.  SCI charter revision  (25 mins)
6.  Working Group self assessment (10 mins)
7.  AOB (5 mins)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130701/4112b36c/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130701/4112b36c/smime.p7s>

From ken.bour at verizon.net  Mon Jul  1 22:08:50 2013
From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour)
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:08:50 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Tomorrow's Conference Call
Message-ID: <006201ce76a7$91719880$b454c980$@verizon.net>

SCI Team Members:

 

I noticed that a 10 minute agenda item has been scheduled to discuss the
Working Group Self-Assessment. 

 

I have sent two emails to the SCI List in which I described progress toward
the development of an assessment instrument, which are located on ICANN's
Community Wiki:

1)      10 June (Original Draft)

2)      12 June (Draft v2) 

 

There has been some feedback and follow-up discussion on the SCI List about
these versions which I hope you have time to review. 

 

For technical reasons, Julie does not think that she will be able to link
directly to the Wiki pages during the Adobe call and asked me to remind you
to look at the following links, if you can, prior to the call tomorrow.

.         The main WG Assessments page is located under the GNSO tab,
Working Group Resources space: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag

.         The latest version of the questionnaire (v2) is located here:
https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag

 

In just 10 minutes, there won't be adequate time to walk through all of the
material I have developed (e.g., Design Considerations
<https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag> , Learning Objectives
<https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag> ). Unless I hear differently, I plan
to dive right into the Draft v2 design that represents my latest thinking on
the subject and incorporates feedback that I have received from a few SCI
members. 

 

Thanks,

 

Ken Bour

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130701/e1586de8/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Tue Jul  2 12:13:38 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 05:13:38 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a
 Motion
In-Reply-To: <CDF739A7.13D80%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CDF83C01.13E0A%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

Please also consider the questions raised on the list by Marika concerning
this issue:
* Who makes a determination whether it considers a re-submission of a motion
or whether it is considers a new motion? Does it have to be identical to be
considered a re-submission? If a few words are added or whereas clauses are
introduced, does that make it a new motion?
* The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not
approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of
further consideration of the Final Issue Report as described above, any
Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a
renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO
Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this
'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to
be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved?
* A 12 month period appears to be a long time to be able to reconsider a
motion ? for example, there may be new information brought forward that may
result in a change of opinion / vote of a SG/C that may warrant
reconsideration of a motion or a certain urgency may require quicker
reconsideration. Should a shorter time frame be considered, or at a minimum
the possibility of an exception to this timeframe at the discretion of the
Chair?
Best regards,
Julie

From:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date:  Monday, July 1, 2013 1:51 PM
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion

Dear SCI members,

As discussed on our 04 June call, we will continue discussion on
re-submission of a motion at our meeting tomorrow, 02 July.  There was
agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see
comments from Anne and James in their emails below).

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion:
 
Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order):
 
1)  Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no
later than the deadline for submitting a motion --  8 days prior to  the
next GNSO Council meeting.
2)  Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the
deadline for submitting a motion --  8 days prior to  the next GNSO Council
meeting.
3)  Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for
placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda.
4)  Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken
off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept
the re-submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com> >
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM
To: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>
>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com> >,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> "
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> >
Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford at web.com <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>
>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI
Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion
 
Ron,
I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC
agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high
level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion.
 
Anne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 James M.
Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To:
gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re:
Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance:
High
 
Hello SCI Team:
 
Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue.  We can report that RrSG members
strongly favor Option #2.
 
Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except-
for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are
followed.  Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some
limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may
be re-introduced.
 
We look forward to further discussions on our next call.
 
Thanks--
 
J.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/fb5f5bf6/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130702/fb5f5bf6/smime.p7s>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Tue Jul  2 16:37:46 2013
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 16:37:46 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mickey
In-Reply-To: <CDF73981.13D7E%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
References: <CDF73981.13D7E%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD21FBE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>

My view is that neither  the "suspension of a PDP" already completed nor the "resubmission of a motion" work requested by the GNSO Council is within the scope of this amended charter as redrafted.

 By the way in relation to the resubmission of a motion, I think GNSO changed the time for notifying of a motion to 10 calendar days in advance at 11:59 UTC or something like that.  I am sure staff can clarify.  Anne

[cid:094223416 at 02072013-17F0]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
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.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:50 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter -- Latest Version from Mickey

All,

For reference for our discussion tomorrow, please see the latest version of the SCI Charter that includes the suggested edits from Mickey.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



________________________________

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/20130702/2279b12a/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/20130702/2279b12a/image001.gif>

From mike at haven2.com  Tue Jul  2 16:53:14 2013
From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:53:14 -0500
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD21FBE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
References: <CDF73981.13D7E%julie.hedlund@icann.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD21FBE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <28AC3CD8-B8AB-4E88-A34D-5E17D879338A@haven2.com>

hi Anne,

i think "suspension of a PDP" could be stretched and tugged to just barely fit under the proposed (and current) charter.  i agree that "resubmission of a motion" is out of scope for both our current and proposed charters -- as that is purely a matter of Council rules of procedure.  i think taking that one on is an especially good example of modifying our mission to becoming the "standing GNSO rules committee," which we may want to avoid.

mikey 

PS. i changed the subject line to Mikey -- Mickey is a mouse

On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:

> 
> My view is that neither  the "suspension of a PDP" already completed nor the "resubmission of a motion" work requested by the GNSO Council is within the scope of this amended charter as redrafted.  
>  
>  By the way in relation to the resubmission of a motion, I think GNSO changed the time for notifying of a motion to 10 calendar days in advance at 11:59 UTC or something like that.  I am sure staff can clarify.  Anne
>  
> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> 
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> 
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:50 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter -- Latest Version from Mickey
> 
> All,
> 
> For reference for our discussion tomorrow, please see the latest version of the SCI Charter that includes the suggested edits from Mickey.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> 
>  
> 
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/290c15e8/attachment.html>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Tue Jul  2 16:54:37 2013
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 16:54:37 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey
In-Reply-To: <28AC3CD8-B8AB-4E88-A34D-5E17D879338A@haven2.com>
References: <CDF73981.13D7E%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD21FBE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
 <28AC3CD8-B8AB-4E88-A34D-5E17D879338A@haven2.com>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD23095@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>

Hi Mikey, I think the term "final review" puts the PDP suspension out of bounds, too.  Anne

[X]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
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.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:53 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter Latest Version from Mikey

hi Anne,

i think "suspension of a PDP" could be stretched and tugged to just barely fit under the proposed (and current) charter.  i agree that "resubmission of a motion" is out of scope for both our current and proposed charters -- as that is purely a matter of Council rules of procedure.  i think taking that one on is an especially good example of modifying our mission to becoming the "standing GNSO rules committee," which we may want to avoid.

mikey

PS. i changed the subject line to Mikey -- Mickey is a mouse

On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com>> wrote:


My view is that neither  the "suspension of a PDP" already completed nor the "resubmission of a motion" work requested by the GNSO Council is within the scope of this amended charter as redrafted.

 By the way in relation to the resubmission of a motion, I think GNSO changed the time for notifying of a motion to 10 calendar days in advance at 11:59 UTC or something like that.  I am sure staff can clarify.  Anne

<image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
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.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.



________________________________
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:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:50 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter -- Latest Version from Mickey

All,

For reference for our discussion tomorrow, please see the latest version of the SCI Charter that includes the suggested edits from Mickey.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director




________________________________

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.











PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)




________________________________

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/20130702/cf27edde/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Tue Jul  2 17:09:55 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:09:55 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD23095@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <CDF880F9.13E4E%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Anne,

As to your question about the number of days required to put forward a
motion, the Council did approve a change to the procedures as follows.  This
was approved at the Council meeting on 13 June 2013:

"Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion
on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated
Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council
meeting."


Best regards,


Julie


Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

From:  <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com>
Date:  Tuesday, July 2, 2013 12:54 PM
To:  Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com>
Cc:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey

Hi Mikey, I think the term "final review" puts the PDP suspension out of
bounds, too.  Anne
 
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
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.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete
theoriginal message.
 


From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:53 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter Latest Version from Mikey

hi Anne,

i think "suspension of a PDP" could be stretched and tugged to just barely
fit under the proposed (and current) charter.  i agree that "resubmission of
a motion" is out of scope for both our current and proposed charters -- as
that is purely a matter of Council rules of procedure.  i think taking that
one on is an especially good example of modifying our mission to becoming
the "standing GNSO rules committee," which we may want to avoid.

mikey 

PS. i changed the subject line to Mikey -- Mickey is a mouse

On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com>
wrote:

> 
> My view is that neither  the "suspension of a PDP" already completed nor the
> "resubmission of a motion" work requested by the GNSO Council is within the
> scope of this amended charter as redrafted.
>  
>  By the way in relation to the resubmission of a motion, I think GNSO changed
> the time for notifying of a motion to 10 calendar days in advance at 11:59 UTC
> or something like that.  I am sure staff can clarify.  Anne
>  
> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> 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.
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
> original message.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:50 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter -- Latest Version from Mickey
> 
> All,
> 
> For reference for our discussion tomorrow, please see the latest version of
> the SCI Charter that includes the suggested edits from Mickey.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
> <http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
> LinkedIn, etc.)
> 

 


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/20130702/47b2a82f/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130702/47b2a82f/smime.p7s>

From mike at haven2.com  Tue Jul  2 17:13:18 2013
From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:13:18 -0500
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD23095@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
References: <CDF73981.13D7E%julie.hedlund@icann.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD21FBE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <28AC3CD8-B8AB-4E88-A34D-5E17D879338A@haven2.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD23095@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <0E93AB51-0108-4FEF-B4AC-B8D74947505A@haven2.com>

argh!  you're right.  Avri and i went back and forth on that "final review" language a while back on the list.  i then rewrote my draft.  and?

apparently forgot to post it.  

so here it is.  right at the 11th hour.  my sincere apologies for neglecting to send it along earlier.  see if this draft works better.  

mikey




On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:54 AM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:

> 
> Hi Mikey, I think the term "final review" puts the PDP suspension out of bounds, too.  Anne
>  
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> 
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> 
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:53 AM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter Latest Version from Mikey
> 
> hi Anne,
> 
> i think "suspension of a PDP" could be stretched and tugged to just barely fit under the proposed (and current) charter.  i agree that "resubmission of a motion" is out of scope for both our current and proposed charters -- as that is purely a matter of Council rules of procedure.  i think taking that one on is an especially good example of modifying our mission to becoming the "standing GNSO rules committee," which we may want to avoid.
> 
> mikey 
> 
> PS. i changed the subject line to Mikey -- Mickey is a mouse
> 
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> My view is that neither  the "suspension of a PDP" already completed nor the "resubmission of a motion" work requested by the GNSO Council is within the scope of this amended charter as redrafted.  
>>  
>>  By the way in relation to the resubmission of a motion, I think GNSO changed the time for notifying of a motion to 10 calendar days in advance at 11:59 UTC or something like that.  I am sure staff can clarify.  Anne
>>  
>> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>> Of Counsel
>> Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
>> One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>> Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
>> AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
>> 
>> 
>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>> 
>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
>> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
>> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:50 AM
>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter -- Latest Version from Mickey
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> For reference for our discussion tomorrow, please see the latest version of the SCI Charter that includes the suggested edits from Mickey.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Julie
>> 
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> 
> 
>  
> 
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/77f944ce/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Charter Revisions - narrow v2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 44032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/77f944ce/SCICharterRevisions-narrowv2.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/77f944ce/attachment-0001.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Tue Jul  2 17:32:22 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:32:22 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey
In-Reply-To: <0E93AB51-0108-4FEF-B4AC-B8D74947505A@haven2.com>
Message-ID: <CDF886AE.13E56%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Mickey,

Thank you for the revised version.  This is the version I will display in
the Adobe Connect room for our call today at 1500 EDT/1200 PDT/1900 UTC.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

From:  Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com>
Date:  Tuesday, July 2, 2013 1:13 PM
To:  "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com>
Cc:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey

argh!  you're right.  Avri and i went back and forth on that "final review"
language a while back on the list.  i then rewrote my draft.  and?

apparently forgot to post it.

so here it is.  right at the 11th hour.  my sincere apologies for neglecting
to send it along earlier.  see if this draft works better.

mikey



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/d17f9609/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130702/d17f9609/smime.p7s>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Tue Jul  2 17:45:03 2013
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:45:03 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey
In-Reply-To: <0E93AB51-0108-4FEF-B4AC-B8D74947505A@haven2.com>
References: <CDF73981.13D7E%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD21FBE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
 <28AC3CD8-B8AB-4E88-A34D-5E17D879338A@haven2.com>
 <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD23095@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
 <0E93AB51-0108-4FEF-B4AC-B8D74947505A@haven2.com>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD2362A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>

Okay, so what exactly are the OSC and PPSC since I don't recall doing anything relating to them in the past couple of years?  Also, why exactly do you want to make sure SCI has an end date if the Council is finding it useful for stuff like PDP suspension and resubmission of a motion?  Anne

[X]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
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.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:13 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter Latest Version from Mikey

argh!  you're right.  Avri and i went back and forth on that "final review" language a while back on the list.  i then rewrote my draft.  and?

apparently forgot to post it.

so here it is.  right at the 11th hour.  my sincere apologies for neglecting to send it along earlier.  see if this draft works better.

mikey




________________________________

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/20130702/4fd2cdce/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Tue Jul  2 18:00:34 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:00:34 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD2362A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <CDF88A6A.13E64%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Anne,

I can answer your first question.  The Operations Steering Committee (OSC)
and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) were created under the GNSO
Improvements Process that began in November 2008.  Their Charters were
approved in January 2009.  They completed their work in January 2011 and
September 2011 respectively.

Here are some details from their archived wikis.  You may wish to refer to
the wikis, which although archived are still available, for more details:

OSC: 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoosc/Operations+Steering+Committee+%2
8OSC%29+-+Home
The OSC is responsible for coordinating, recommending and reviewing  changes
to certain operational activities of the GNSO and its  constituencies with a
view to efficient outcomes.

PPSC: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/PPSC+-+Home
The Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) is responsible for reviewing
and recommending processes used within the GNSO for developing policy and
recommending any changes. The PPSC established two separate teams, one
tasked with developing a proposal for a new WG model (?WG-WT Home
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/WG-WT+Home> ) and the other a
new policy development process (?PDP-WT Home
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/PDP-WT+Home> ).

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

From:  <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com>
Date:  Tuesday, July 2, 2013 1:45 PM
To:  Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com>
Cc:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey

Okay, so what exactly are the OSC and PPSC since I don't recall doing
anything relating to them in the past couple of years?  Also, why exactly do
you want to make sure SCI has an end date if the Council is finding it
useful for stuff like PDP suspension and resubmission of a motion?  Anne
 
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
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.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete
theoriginal message.
 


From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:13 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter Latest Version from Mikey

argh!  you're right.  Avri and i went back and forth on that "final review"
language a while back on the list.  i then rewrote my draft.  and?

apparently forgot to post it.

so here it is.  right at the 11th hour.  my sincere apologies for neglecting
to send it along earlier.  see if this draft works better.

mikey

 


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/20130702/32eb9c94/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130702/32eb9c94/smime.p7s>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Tue Jul  2 18:25:03 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:25:03 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Tomorrow's Conference Call
In-Reply-To: <006201ce76a7$91719880$b454c980$@verizon.net>
References: <006201ce76a7$91719880$b454c980$@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <010501ce7751$7aaedea0$700c9be0$@rnapartners.com>

Thank you for this update and the links, Ken.  We will discuss this, as you
note, during our call today and advise as to the next steps.

 

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 Ken Bour
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 18:09
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Cc: Hedlund, Julie (ICANN)
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Tomorrow's Conference Call

 

SCI Team Members:

 

I noticed that a 10 minute agenda item has been scheduled to discuss the
Working Group Self-Assessment. 

 

I have sent two emails to the SCI List in which I described progress toward
the development of an assessment instrument, which are located on ICANN's
Community Wiki:

1)      10 June (Original Draft)

2)      12 June (Draft v2) 

 

There has been some feedback and follow-up discussion on the SCI List about
these versions which I hope you have time to review. 

 

For technical reasons, Julie does not think that she will be able to link
directly to the Wiki pages during the Adobe call and asked me to remind you
to look at the following links, if you can, prior to the call tomorrow.

*         The main WG Assessments page is located under the GNSO tab,
Working Group Resources space: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag

*         The latest version of the questionnaire (v2) is located here:
https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag

 

In just 10 minutes, there won't be adequate time to walk through all of the
material I have developed (e.g., Design Considerations
<https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag> , Learning Objectives
<https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag> ). Unless I hear differently, I plan
to dive right into the Draft v2 design that represents my latest thinking on
the subject and incorporates feedback that I have received from a few SCI
members. 

 

Thanks,

 

Ken Bour

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/ee87f613/attachment.html>

From mike at haven2.com  Tue Jul  2 18:59:01 2013
From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:59:01 -0500
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter  Latest Version from Mikey
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD2362A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
References: <CDF73981.13D7E%julie.hedlund@icann.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD21FBE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <28AC3CD8-B8AB-4E88-A34D-5E17D879338A@haven2.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD23095@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> <0E93AB51-0108-4FEF-B4AC-B8D74947505A@haven2.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD2362A@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <0658BAB5-51A3-422F-814F-9BC0A74DC345@haven2.com>

hi Anne,

that's the nub of it for me.  we were originally chartered as the caboose on a project.  the last project in a big series of projects to revise the PDP.  after we're done delivering our deliverables, we wrap up.  what the requests from the Council do is turn us from a project (beginning, middle, end, beer) into a function (an ongoing thing that persists forever).  i'm pretty uncomfortable making such a profound change because i'm not sure who asked us to do that, whether we are the right group, or whether the Council really intended to give up that ongoing "rules committee" job to us.


On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com> wrote:

> 
> Okay, so what exactly are the OSC and PPSC since I don't recall doing anything relating to them in the past couple of years?  Also, why exactly do you want to make sure SCI has an end date if the Council is finding it useful for stuff like PDP suspension and resubmission of a motion?  Anne
>  
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman at LRLaw.com ? www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> 
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> 
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike at haven2.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:13 AM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter Latest Version from Mikey
> 
> argh!  you're right.  Avri and i went back and forth on that "final review" language a while back on the list.  i then rewrote my draft.  and?
> 
> apparently forgot to post it.  
> 
> so here it is.  right at the 11th hour.  my sincere apologies for neglecting to send it along earlier.  see if this draft works better.  
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
>  
> 
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/69b63d51/attachment.html>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Tue Jul  2 19:13:34 2013
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:13:34 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Tomorrow's Conference Call
In-Reply-To: <010501ce7751$7aaedea0$700c9be0$@rnapartners.com>
References: <006201ce76a7$91719880$b454c980$@verizon.net>
 <010501ce7751$7aaedea0$700c9be0$@rnapartners.com>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD23D24@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>

Ron, I am experiencing some extreme technical difficulties and will keep trying to get inet in. to the meeting and/or the call.  Anne

[cid:472241119 at 02072013-24EF]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
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.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
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, July 02, 2013 11:25 AM
To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Cc: 'Hedlund, Julie (ICANN)'
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Tomorrow's Conference Call

Thank you for this update and the links, Ken.  We will discuss this, as you note, during our call today and advise as to the next steps.

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] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 18:09
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Cc: Hedlund, Julie (ICANN)
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Tomorrow's Conference Call

SCI Team Members:

I noticed that a 10 minute agenda item has been scheduled to discuss the Working Group Self-Assessment.

I have sent two emails to the SCI List in which I described progress toward the development of an assessment instrument, which are located on ICANN?s Community Wiki:

1)      10 June (Original Draft)

2)      12 June (Draft v2)

There has been some feedback and follow-up discussion on the SCI List about these versions which I hope you have time to review.

For technical reasons, Julie does not think that she will be able to link directly to the Wiki pages during the Adobe call and asked me to remind you to look at the following links, if you can, prior to the call tomorrow.

?         The main WG Assessments page is located under the GNSO tab, Working Group Resources space: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag

?         The latest version of the questionnaire (v2) is located here: https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag

In just 10 minutes, there won?t be adequate time to walk through all of the material I have developed (e.g., Design Considerations<https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag>, Learning Objectives<https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag>). Unless I hear differently, I plan to dive right into the Draft v2 design that represents my latest thinking on the subject and incorporates feedback that I have received from a few SCI members.

Thanks,

Ken Bour




________________________________

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/20130702/84f7d95d/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/20130702/84f7d95d/image001.gif>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Tue Jul  2 20:27:36 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:27:36 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Re-Submitting a Motion
Message-ID: <CDF8AFF8.13E8A%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

Attached for your review is the revised procedure for re-submitting a motion
based on the suggestions from the call on 02 July.  The changes are included
as redlines.  It also is posted to the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013.  Note that two
of the questions from Marika were addressed, but the remaining question
below and in the attached document needs to be discussed.  Please send your
comments and questions on the list.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Remaining question from Marika:

The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not
approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of
further consideration of the Final Issue Report, any Councillor may appeal
the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a renewed vote on the
initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO Council meeting'. There
are no further requirements attached to this 'renewed vote' - would this be
considered an exception or would it need to be brought in line with the new
requirements if/when approved?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/6f4ffd19/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Re-Submitting Motion 02072013.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 188418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/6f4ffd19/Re-SubmittingMotion02072013.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/20130702/6f4ffd19/smime.p7s>

From julia.charvolen at icann.org  Tue Jul  2 21:33:40 2013
From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:33:40 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 2 July 2013
Message-ID: <CDF913D4.2670A%julia.charvolen@icann.org>

Dear All,

The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held in Durban.

Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday,  2 July 2013 at 19:00UTC.

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130702-en.mp3

On page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>jul
(transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page)

Attendees:
James Bladel ? Registrar Stakeholder Group ? Primary
Ray Fassett ? Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary
Ronald Andruff ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Primary ? Chair
Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency ? Alternate
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ? ISPCP ? Primary
Mikey O?Connor  ? ISPCP ? Alternate
Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Primary
Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary ? Vice-Chair
Ken Bour ?  guest speaker

Apologies:
Jennifer Wolfe ? NCA primary

ICANN Staff:
Julie Hedlund
Julia Charvolen


** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
 Julia Charvolen
For GNSO Secretariat

Adobe Connect chat transcript 2  July 2013:
 Ron A:Apologies... coming online now.
  Bladel:James on the line.
  Bladel:Apologies, everyone, but I have to drop in 30 min due to a medical appointment. :(
  Bladel:I hear Ron fine.
  Julie Hedlund:Strange.  Maybe it's me.  I've going to dial back in.
  Julie Hedlund:Actually I've fixed my problem.
  Julie Hedlund:I think that we are coalescing around option 2 if I recall.
  Avri Doria:Option2 was where i thought the consensus was2
  Julie Hedlund:James sent on 25 May: Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, - except - for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if items 2.1 and 2.3 are followed.
  Avri Doria:ship it.
  Julia Charvolen:Please mute your lines if you are not speaking, thank you
  Julie Hedlund:Not publishing the re-submission procedure, but "publishing" related to criteria 2.2.
  Avri Doria:If you can't get someone from the other house to second it ain't gonna pass.
  Avri Doria:I was was suggesting it stay inIts
  Mike O'Connor:can the SCI take a look at the letter before it goes to the Council?
  Avri Doria:I won't be there, I expect.  All dayAtrt
  Anne:Yes, add to slides julie!
  Anne:I cant' attend Durban in person, unfortunately.
  Ken Bour:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=41889388
  Julie Hedlund:   The main WG Assessments page is located under the GNSO tab, Working Group Resources space: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag?<https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag%C2%B7>         The latest version of the questionnaire (v2) is located here: https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag
  Mike O'Connor:i could she my screen so that people can see the questionnaire
  Mike O'Connor:"she" = "share"
  Avri Doria:And someone like me will sometimes agree with the extreme.
  Mike O'Connor:VI?  Fast Flux?
  Julie Hedlund:Mikey has solved our issue re: showing the screen
  Julie Hedlund:Thanks Mikey!
  Julia Charvolen:Thank you Mikey!
  Wolf Knoben:Mikey captures ICANN programming!?
  Mike O'Connor:I got it off my NSA feed
  Wolf Knoben:Ah you're behind...
  Avri Doria:And over time we can track trends
  Avri Doria:And can use it for metrics on what changes hero or hinder.
  Avri Doria:Help not hero
  Anne:Sorry  I will have to drop off .  Will check for updates on the list.  Thank you. Anne
  Avri Doria:Oops I have another meeting thanks'

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/ef78b51d/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Tue Jul  2 21:41:35 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:41:35 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 02 July 2013
Message-ID: <CDF8C14F.13EC0%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

Please see below the actions from today's SCI meeting.  Our next monthly
meeting is scheduled for Tuesday  06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour
(12:00 PST, 15:00 EST,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET).  A notice will be sent
separately to the list with teleconference and Adobe Connect room details.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,
Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Actions from 02 July Meeting

1.  Re-submitting a motion: 1) drop criteria 2.4.  2) time limit -- resubmit
by the second meeting following the submission of the motion. 10 calendar
days before the meeting. 3) Staff send revised document for discussion on
the list.

2.  SCI Charter:  Letter to the Council Chair advising them that we are
discussing revising our charter; include in update to Council on Saturday in
Durban.

3.  Working Group Self Assessment:  The SCI members should review Draft 2 of
the assessment tool and provide comments either on the wiki or on the list.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130702/b30b2ca3/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130702/b30b2ca3/smime.p7s>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Wed Jul  3 15:15:43 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:15:43 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
Message-ID: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft
message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues
concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in
Durban.

 

Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan
------------------------

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)
will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.
One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have
reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to
include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the
SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After
discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance
from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a
review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or
whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural
issues not related to the improvements process.  One such example might be
the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI
to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised
procedures.

 

The current Charter states:

"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be
responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of
recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy
Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team
(PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:
* On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present
immediate problems
* On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify
possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the
SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"


The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect
to the duration of the SCI work.  Should the SCI cease to exist when it has
completed the second bullet above from the Charter?  Or should the SCI
continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised the the
GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?

 

It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the
SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to
discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130703/efa14fa2/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130703/efa14fa2/smime.p7s>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Wed Jul  3 16:30:51 2013
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:30:51 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
References: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD29C7F@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>

I think this looks fine.  Anne

[cid:867383016 at 03072013-2518]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700
One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
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.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.


________________________________
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, July 03, 2013 8:16 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
Importance: High

Dear SCI members,

As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in Durban.

Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan ------------------------

Dear Jonathan,

As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process.  One such example might be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.

The current Charter states:

"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

  *   On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
  *   On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"

The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to the duration of the SCI work.  Should the SCI cease to exist when it has completed the second bullet above from the Charter?  Or should the SCI continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised the the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?

It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.

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/20130703/7b602590/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/20130703/7b602590/image001.gif>

From ken.bour at verizon.net  Thu Jul  4 16:28:02 2013
From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour)
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:28:02 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft v3)
Message-ID: <000701ce78d3$749de320$5dd9a960$@verizon.net>

SCI Team Members:

 

After our last teleconference (2 July), I continued my own evaluation of the
questionnaire looking for ways to sharpen and improve it including
addressing your feedback received thus far. I developed a new Draft v3 for
your review at: https://community.icann.org/x/eEZ-Ag.

 

In this version of the questionnaire, I made the following substantive
changes:

1.	The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to
address Ron's observation about the expected variability in team members'
knowledge/skill. 
2.	Tangential to Ron's concern, I added a new disclaimer in the note
just before Section II to explain how respondents might approach the
challenge of assigning individual ratings to complex dimensions. 
3.	In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and
changed the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback
entered as a comment to Draft v2.
4.	I elected to break out Personal Dimensions and Demographics into two
independent sections. Each one represents a logically distinct category;
furthermore, the table headings simply did not apply correctly to the
Demographics questions.
5.	Added a third question to the Personal Dimensions which I labeled
"Willingness-to-Serve" for want of a better noun. This question seeks to
understand whether the WG experience influences one's propensity to serve
again in the future assuming all other conditions (e.g., topic, need/fit,
availability) are favorable. In other words, are we systematically building
or eroding volunteer capacity?

 

I look forward to your feedback on this third iteration of the WG
Self-Assessment instrument. 

 

As you may know, I will not be present in Durban; however, if the team
wishes to continue working on this project and would like my involvement, I
am willing to join in any/all sessions remotely if technical conditions
(e.g., room connections) permit. 

 

Regards,

 

Ken

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130704/932d763f/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Thu Jul  4 19:16:34 2013
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 21:16:34 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
References: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <EDD75280555940ED8AEF3C9094DBECE2@WUKPC>

I don?t think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present charter because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the improvements process (council operating rules).
In addition the two bullet points ? at least from my point of view ? do not limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.

Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we could achieve in Durban a general ?go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope? by the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.

See my comments below

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 



From: Julie Hedlund 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org 
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter

Dear SCI members,

As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in Durban.



Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.



Best regards,



Julie



Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan ------------------------



Dear Jonathan,



As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.



The current Charter states:

"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

  a.. On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems 
  b.. On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"



The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it has completed the second bullet above from the Charter? Or Should the SCI continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council? 



It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.



Best regards,



Ron



Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130704/fee935b2/attachment.html>

From mike at haven2.com  Fri Jul  5 12:34:29 2013
From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 07:34:29 -0500
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <EDD75280555940ED8AEF3C9094DBECE2@WUKPC>
References: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org> <EDD75280555940ED8AEF3C9094DBECE2@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <E738CA56-B414-4244-A9E6-B489206F8150@haven2.com>


On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:16 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

> I don?t think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present charter because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the improvements process (council operating rules).

i think there's an underlying question of intent.  it's true that almost everything the GNSO does was touched by those committees that sprang out of the Board review.  but that's the equivalent of saying that everything is touched by the Constitution of a country.  i think this goes back to the framers of our charter.  what did they intend and why?

a broad interpretation of the charter is:

- the SCI has a broad mandate to review the operation of the GNSO
- it lives forever (it is an ongoing function)

a narrow interpretation is:

- the SCI reviews issues arising *directly* from the work of the prior committees, and is the last committee in that series
- it ends, after completing those reviews (it is a project)

i think a lot of things get easier once that basic clarification is made.  decisions about the skills of the group, tasks it takes on, expected deliverables, etc. all get a lot clearer.  perhaps we could frame the question the the Council this way?

mikey

  
> In addition the two bullet points ? at least from my point of view ? do not limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.
>  
> Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we could achieve in Durban a general ?go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope? by the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.
>  
> See my comments below
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich 
> 
>  
> From: Julie Hedlund
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
>  
> Dear SCI members,
>  
> As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in Durban.
>  
> Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Julie
>  
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>  
> ----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan ------------------------
>  
> Dear Jonathan,
>  
> As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.
>  
> The current Charter states:
> "The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:
> 
> On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
> On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"
> 
> The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it has completed the second bullet above from the Charter? Or Should the SCI continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?
>  
> It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Ron
>  
> Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/af4e3540/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Fri Jul  5 13:28:56 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:28:56 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft
 v3)
In-Reply-To: <000701ce78d3$749de320$5dd9a960$@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <CDFC41E2.14072%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear Ken,

Thank you very much for this helpful information and your continued
excellent work.  I just wanted to let you know that the SCI does not have a
meeting scheduled in Durban.  Ron will provide an update to the GNSO Council
on Saturday the 13th from 1730-1745.  Nathalie sent the dial up details to
the SCI list and you are of course welcome to join if that fits with your
schedule.

Best regards,
Julie

From:  Ken Bour <ken.bour at verizon.net>
Date:  Thursday, July 4, 2013 12:28 PM
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft
v3)

SCI Team Members:
 
After our last teleconference (2 July), I continued my own evaluation of the
questionnaire looking for ways to sharpen and improve it including
addressing your feedback received thus far. I developed a new Draft v3 for
your review at: https://community.icann.org/x/eEZ-Ag.
 
In this version of the questionnaire, I made the following substantive
changes:
1. The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to
address Ron's observation about the expected variability in team members?
knowledge/skill. 
2. Tangential to Ron?s concern, I added a new disclaimer in the note just
before Section II to explain how respondents might approach the challenge of
assigning individual ratings to complex dimensions.
3. In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and changed
the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback entered
as a comment to Draft v2.
4. I elected to break out Personal Dimensions and Demographics into two
independent sections. Each one represents a logically distinct category;
furthermore, the table headings simply did not apply correctly to the
Demographics questions.
5. Added a third question to the Personal Dimensions which I labeled
"Willingness-to-Serve" for want of a better noun. This question seeks to
understand whether the WG experience influences one's propensity to serve
again in the future assuming all other conditions (e.g., topic, need/fit,
availability) are favorable. In other words, are we systematically building
or eroding volunteer capacity?
 
I look forward to your feedback on this third iteration of the WG
Self-Assessment instrument.
 
As you may know, I will not be present in Durban; however, if the team
wishes to continue working on this project and would like my involvement, I
am willing to join in any/all sessions remotely if technical conditions
(e.g., room connections) permit.
 
Regards,
 
Ken
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/0639a891/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130705/0639a891/smime.p7s>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Fri Jul  5 13:40:54 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:40:54 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
 Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <E738CA56-B414-4244-A9E6-B489206F8150@haven2.com>
Message-ID: <CDFC44D6.14085%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Mickey,

Do you have suggested changes to the text of the message to Jonathan as
Wolf-Ulrich has done?  That would be very helpful.

Best regards,
Julie

From:  Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com>
Date:  Friday, July 5, 2013 8:34 AM
To:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Cc:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter


On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:16 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

> I don?t think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present
> charter because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the
> improvements process (council operating rules).

i think there's an underlying question of intent.  it's true that almost
everything the GNSO does was touched by those committees that sprang out of
the Board review.  but that's the equivalent of saying that everything is
touched by the Constitution of a country.  i think this goes back to the
framers of our charter.  what did they intend and why?

a broad interpretation of the charter is:

- the SCI has a broad mandate to review the operation of the GNSO
- it lives forever (it is an ongoing function)

a narrow interpretation is:

- the SCI reviews issues arising *directly* from the work of the prior
committees, and is the last committee in that series
- it ends, after completing those reviews (it is a project)

i think a lot of things get easier once that basic clarification is made.
decisions about the skills of the group, tasks it takes on, expected
deliverables, etc. all get a lot clearer.  perhaps we could frame the
question the the Council this way?

mikey

  
> In addition the two bullet points ? at least from my point of view ? do not
> limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.
>  
> Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we
> could achieve in Durban a general ?go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope?
> by the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete
> suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.
>  
> See my comments below
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich 
> 
>  
> From: Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair
> re SCI Charter
>  
> Dear SCI members,
>  
> As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft
> message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues
> concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in
> Durban.
>  
> 
> Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.
>  
> 
> Best regards,
>  
> 
> Julie
>  
> 
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>  
> 
> ----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan
> ------------------------
>  
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
>  
> 
> As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will
> provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One
> of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have
> reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include
> procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also
> has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible
> updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council
> as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures
> developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council
> intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the
> improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a
> motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which
> the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.
>  
> 
> The current Charter states:
> "The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be
> responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of
> recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy
> Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team
> (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:
> * On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present
> immediate problems
> * On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify
> possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI
> on which recommendations should be reviewed)"
> 
> The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to
> the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it has
> completed the second bullet above from the Charter?Or Should the SCI continue
> indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO
> Council or a group Chartered by the Council?
>  
> 
> It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI
> can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to
> discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.
>  
> 
> Best regards,
>  
> 
> Ron
>  
> 
> Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
<http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn, etc.)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/233b7fbe/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130705/233b7fbe/smime.p7s>

From mike at haven2.com  Fri Jul  5 15:56:38 2013
From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 10:56:38 -0500
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <CDFC44D6.14085%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
References: <CDFC44D6.14085%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <1235CE0B-0A07-43DC-8410-D55515C4E51B@haven2.com>

here goes?  i've shifted this over to a Word document, as the formatting won't survive the listserv for some.



mikey (hey Julie, Mikey, not Mickey.  Mickey's the mouse)

Dear Jonathan,
 
As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the scope of the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to  should also address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.
 
The current Charter states:
"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"

The SCI also seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to the duration of the SCI work. WUK/Mikey: Should the SCI be considered the last in the series of committees that arose from the Board review and thus cease to exist when it has completed its review of that work?  Or should the SCI continue indefinitely, to as an ongoing body which considers procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?
 
It seems that   The SCI requests that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI can considers revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.


On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:

> Mickey,
> 
> Do you have suggested changes to the text of the message to Jonathan as Wolf-Ulrich has done?  That would be very helpful.
> 
> Best regards,
> Julie
> 
> From: Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com>
> Date: Friday, July 5, 2013 8:34 AM
> To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
> 
> 
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:16 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> I don?t think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present charter because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the improvements process (council operating rules).
> 
> i think there's an underlying question of intent.  it's true that almost everything the GNSO does was touched by those committees that sprang out of the Board review.  but that's the equivalent of saying that everything is touched by the Constitution of a country.  i think this goes back to the framers of our charter.  what did they intend and why?
> 
> a broad interpretation of the charter is:
> 
> - the SCI has a broad mandate to review the operation of the GNSO
> - it lives forever (it is an ongoing function)
> 
> a narrow interpretation is:
> 
> - the SCI reviews issues arising *directly* from the work of the prior committees, and is the last committee in that series
> - it ends, after completing those reviews (it is a project)
> 
> i think a lot of things get easier once that basic clarification is made.  decisions about the skills of the group, tasks it takes on, expected deliverables, etc. all get a lot clearer.  perhaps we could frame the question the the Council this way?
> 
> mikey
> 
>   
>> In addition the two bullet points ? at least from my point of view ? do not limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.
>>  
>> Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we could achieve in Durban a general ?go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope? by the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.
>>  
>> See my comments below
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>> 
>>  
>> From: Julie Hedlund
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM
>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
>>  
>> Dear SCI members,
>>  
>> As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in Durban.
>>  
>> Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Julie
>>  
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>  
>> ----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan ------------------------
>>  
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>  
>> As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.
>>  
>> The current Charter states:
>> "The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:
>> 
>> On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
>> On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"
>> 
>> The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it has completed the second bullet above from the Charter?Or Should the SCI continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?
>>  
>> It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Ron
>>  
>> Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/85d8a99a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Andruff to Robinson 5-July 2013.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/85d8a99a/SCIAndrufftoRobinson5-July2013.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/85d8a99a/attachment-0001.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Fri Jul  5 16:07:14 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:07:14 -0700
Subject: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
 Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <1235CE0B-0A07-43DC-8410-D55515C4E51B@haven2.com>
Message-ID: <CDFC6747.140C1%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Thanks Mickey for the changes.

SCI members,

Please see the attached version from Mickey and let us know if you have
changes/comments ASAP.

Best regards,

Julie

From:  Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com>
Date:  Friday, July 5, 2013 11:56 AM
To:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Cc:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>,
WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

here goes?  i've shifted this over to a Word document, as the formatting
won't survive the listserv for some.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/aea39e69/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Andruff to Robinson 5-July 2013.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/aea39e69/SCIAndrufftoRobinson5-July2013.doc>
-------------- 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/20130705/aea39e69/smime.p7s>

From mike at haven2.com  Fri Jul  5 16:07:50 2013
From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:07:50 -0500
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft v3)
In-Reply-To: <000701ce78d3$749de320$5dd9a960$@verizon.net>
References: <000701ce78d3$749de320$5dd9a960$@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <9E9FE960-838C-4916-A0C3-11BB0F901C98@haven2.com>

hi Ken,

i'm on board with all your proposed changes.  i think this is getting really close to "ship it!" for me.  :-)

mikey


On Jul 4, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Ken Bour <ken.bour at verizon.net> wrote:

> SCI Team Members:
>  
> After our last teleconference (2 July), I continued my own evaluation of the questionnaire looking for ways to sharpen and improve it including addressing your feedback received thus far. I developed a new Draft v3 for your review at: https://community.icann.org/x/eEZ-Ag.
>  
> In this version of the questionnaire, I made the following substantive changes:
> The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to address Ron's observation about the expected variability in team members? knowledge/skill.
> Tangential to Ron?s concern, I added a new disclaimer in the note just before Section II to explain how respondents might approach the challenge of assigning individual ratings to complex dimensions.
> In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and changed the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback entered as a comment to Draft v2.
> I elected to break out Personal Dimensions and Demographics into two independent sections. Each one represents a logically distinct category; furthermore, the table headings simply did not apply correctly to the Demographics questions.
> Added a third question to the Personal Dimensions which I labeled "Willingness-to-Serve" for want of a better noun. This question seeks to understand whether the WG experience influences one's propensity to serve again in the future assuming all other conditions (e.g., topic, need/fit, availability) are favorable. In other words, are we systematically building or eroding volunteer capacity?
>  
> I look forward to your feedback on this third iteration of the WG Self-Assessment instrument.
>  
> As you may know, I will not be present in Durban; however, if the team wishes to continue working on this project and would like my involvement, I am willing to join in any/all sessions remotely if technical conditions (e.g., room connections) permit.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Ken
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/92b824b0/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Fri Jul  5 16:22:31 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:22:31 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
 Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <CDFC6747.140C1%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CDFC6AFA.140CA%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

And of course I mean Mikey, and not Mickey!

From:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date:  Friday, July 5, 2013 12:07 PM
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

Thanks Mickey for the changes.

SCI members,

Please see the attached version from Mickey and let us know if you have
changes/comments ASAP.

Best regards,

Julie

From:  Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com>
Date:  Friday, July 5, 2013 11:56 AM
To:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Cc:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>,
WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

here goes?  i've shifted this over to a Word document, as the formatting
won't survive the listserv for some.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/916d889c/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130705/916d889c/smime.p7s>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Fri Jul  5 17:20:38 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:20:38 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE:  FINAL REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
Message-ID: <006501ce79a3$fa1c9390$ee55bab0$@rnapartners.com>

Dear Committee Members, 

 

If there are no other changes proposed in the coming 24 hours, I will send a
clean version of the final draft that Julie circulated today to the GNSO
Council Chair, as discussed on our call of this past Tuesday.

 

Thanks to Julie, Wolf-Ulrich and Mikey for their contributions.

 

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 Julie Hedlund
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 12:23
To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

 

And of course I mean Mikey, and not Mickey!

 

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Date: Friday, July 5, 2013 12:07 PM
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> >
Subject: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

 

Thanks Mickey for the changes.

 

SCI members,

 

Please see the attached version from Mickey and let us know if you have
changes/comments ASAP.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

From: Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com <mailto:mike at haven2.com> >
Date: Friday, July 5, 2013 11:56 AM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>
Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> >, WUKnoben
<wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> >
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

 

here goes.  i've shifted this over to a Word document, as the formatting
won't survive the listserv for some. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/ea493bab/attachment.html>

From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de  Fri Jul  5 17:55:02 2013
From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 19:55:02 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <E738CA56-B414-4244-A9E6-B489206F8150@haven2.com>
References: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org> <EDD75280555940ED8AEF3C9094DBECE2@WUKPC> <E738CA56-B414-4244-A9E6-B489206F8150@haven2.com>
Message-ID: <574ADF8D225A412D9C7945F12A6F4FEF@WUKPC>

I?m fully agreeing that this discussion is needed. We might also compare the SCI status with the SIC (on board level)
Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Mike O'Connor 
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 2:34 PM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter


On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:16 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:


  I don?t think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present charter because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the improvements process (council operating rules).

i think there's an underlying question of intent.  it's true that almost everything the GNSO does was touched by those committees that sprang out of the Board review.  but that's the equivalent of saying that everything is touched by the Constitution of a country.  i think this goes back to the framers of our charter.  what did they intend and why?

a broad interpretation of the charter is:

- the SCI has a broad mandate to review the operation of the GNSO
- it lives forever (it is an ongoing function)

a narrow interpretation is:

- the SCI reviews issues arising *directly* from the work of the prior committees, and is the last committee in that series
- it ends, after completing those reviews (it is a project)

i think a lot of things get easier once that basic clarification is made.  decisions about the skills of the group, tasks it takes on, expected deliverables, etc. all get a lot clearer.  perhaps we could frame the question the the Council this way?

mikey

 
  In addition the two bullet points ? at least from my point of view ? do not limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.

  Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we could achieve in Durban a general ?go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope? by the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.

  See my comments below

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich 



  From: Julie Hedlund 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM
  To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org 
  Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter

  Dear SCI members,

  As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in Durban.


  Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.


  Best regards,


  Julie


  Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


  ----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan ------------------------


  Dear Jonathan,


  As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.


  The current Charter states:
  "The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

    a.. On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems 
    b.. On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"


  The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it has completed the second bullet above from the Charter? Or Should the SCI continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council? 


  It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.


  Best regards,


  Ron


  Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/d0fcaf2b/attachment.html>

From mike at haven2.com  Fri Jul  5 19:50:44 2013
From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:50:44 -0500
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <574ADF8D225A412D9C7945F12A6F4FEF@WUKPC>
References: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org> <EDD75280555940ED8AEF3C9094DBECE2@WUKPC> <E738CA56-B414-4244-A9E6-B489206F8150@haven2.com> <574ADF8D225A412D9C7945F12A6F4FEF@WUKPC>
Message-ID: <64A86B6D-46BC-4879-9C2A-08507EE99FC4@haven2.com>

there's at least one important difference between the SCI and the SIC.  the SIC is a sub-committee *of the Board* (so only Board members are eligible to serve) where we are not a sub-committee of the Council and membership eligibility is broader.    

that is one of the things that confuses me about the "broad" definition of our charter (ongoing, addressing all manner of issues, similar to SIC).  it seems to me that if that is the direction our charter is going, then we might want to review (and make more rigorous) our membership criteria as well.  

mikey


On Jul 5, 2013, at 12:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

> I?m fully agreeing that this discussion is needed. We might also compare the SCI status with the SIC (on board level)
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 2:34 PM
> To: WUKnoben
> Cc: Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
>  
>  
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:16 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> I don?t think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present charter because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the improvements process (council operating rules).
>  
> i think there's an underlying question of intent.  it's true that almost everything the GNSO does was touched by those committees that sprang out of the Board review.  but that's the equivalent of saying that everything is touched by the Constitution of a country.  i think this goes back to the framers of our charter.  what did they intend and why?
>  
> a broad interpretation of the charter is:
>  
> - the SCI has a broad mandate to review the operation of the GNSO
> - it lives forever (it is an ongoing function)
>  
> a narrow interpretation is:
>  
> - the SCI reviews issues arising *directly* from the work of the prior committees, and is the last committee in that series
> - it ends, after completing those reviews (it is a project)
>  
> i think a lot of things get easier once that basic clarification is made.  decisions about the skills of the group, tasks it takes on, expected deliverables, etc. all get a lot clearer.  perhaps we could frame the question the the Council this way?
>  
> mikey
>  
>> In addition the two bullet points ? at least from my point of view ? do not limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.
>>  
>> Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we could achieve in Durban a general ?go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope? by the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.
>>  
>> See my comments below
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>> 
>>  
>> From: Julie Hedlund
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM
>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
>>  
>> Dear SCI members,
>>  
>> As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in Durban.
>>  
>> Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Julie
>>  
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>  
>> ----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan ------------------------
>>  
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>  
>> As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.
>>  
>> The current Charter states:
>> "The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:
>> 
>> On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems
>> On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"
>> 
>> The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it has completed the second bullet above from the Charter? Or Should the SCI continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?
>>  
>> It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Ron
>>  
>> Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI
> 
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130705/20ceae4d/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Mon Jul  8 18:43:20 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:43:20 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Final Draft Letter to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <011401ce7c0a$139f7ea0$3ade7be0$@rnapartners.com>
Message-ID: <CE00803F.14242%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Ron,

I've attached the letter.  Please copy the SCI list at:
gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org.  That will cover all who need to be copied.

Thanks,
Julie

From:  Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
Date:  Monday, July 8, 2013 2:36 PM
To:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: Final Draft Letter to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter

Julie,
 
I am having some trouble with my PC software to pull the final doc together?
 
Can you kindly prepare the final draft letter for Jonathan and send it to me
with the email addresses for all those who should be copied, so that I can
send it on?
 
Thank you,
 
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] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 12:23
To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter
 

And of course I mean Mikey, and not Mickey!

 

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Friday, July 5, 2013 12:07 PM
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

 

Thanks Mickey for the changes.

 

SCI members,

 

Please see the attached version from Mickey and let us know if you have
changes/comments ASAP.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

From: Mike O'Conner <mike at haven2.com>
Date: Friday, July 5, 2013 11:56 AM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>,
WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

 

here goes?  i've shifted this over to a Word document, as the formatting
won't survive the listserv for some.

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130708/cfa9c4f8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Andruff to Robinson 8-July 2013.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29184 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130708/cfa9c4f8/SCIAndrufftoRobinson8-July2013.doc>
-------------- 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/20130708/cfa9c4f8/smime.p7s>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Mon Jul  8 18:46:34 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:46:34 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter
In-Reply-To: <64A86B6D-46BC-4879-9C2A-08507EE99FC4@haven2.com>
References: <CDF9B85F.13F66%julie.hedlund@icann.org> <EDD75280555940ED8AEF3C9094DBECE2@WUKPC> <E738CA56-B414-4244-A9E6-B489206F8150@haven2.com> <574ADF8D225A412D9C7945F12A6F4FEF@WUKPC> <64A86B6D-46BC-4879-9C2A-08507EE99FC4@haven2.com>
Message-ID: <014301ce7c0b$7a3b1560$6eb14020$@rnapartners.com>

Dear Mikey and all, 

 

SCI membership is made up of all supporting organizations/constituencies
with one primary and one secondary rep.  So membership is inclusive of all
ICANN bodies.  What is more important, in my view, is for the members to be
more diligent to ensure that at least the primary or secondary rep is on
every call.

 

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 Mike O'Connor
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 15:51
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

 

there's at least one important difference between the SCI and the SIC.  the
SIC is a sub-committee *of the Board* (so only Board members are eligible to
serve) where we are not a sub-committee of the Council and membership
eligibility is broader.    

 

that is one of the things that confuses me about the "broad" definition of
our charter (ongoing, addressing all manner of issues, similar to SIC).  it
seems to me that if that is the direction our charter is going, then we
might want to review (and make more rigorous) our membership criteria as
well.  

 

mikey

 

 

On Jul 5, 2013, at 12:55 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> > wrote:





I'm fully agreeing that this discussion is needed. We might also compare the
SCI status with the SIC (on board level)
Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

From: Mike O'Connor <mailto:mike at haven2.com>  

Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 2:34 PM

To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>  

Cc: Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>  ;
gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>  

Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

 

 

On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:16 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> > wrote:





I don't think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present
charter because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the
improvements process (council operating rules).

 

i think there's an underlying question of intent.  it's true that almost
everything the GNSO does was touched by those committees that sprang out of
the Board review.  but that's the equivalent of saying that everything is
touched by the Constitution of a country.  i think this goes back to the
framers of our charter.  what did they intend and why?

 

a broad interpretation of the charter is:

 

- the SCI has a broad mandate to review the operation of the GNSO

- it lives forever (it is an ongoing function)

 

a narrow interpretation is:

 

- the SCI reviews issues arising *directly* from the work of the prior
committees, and is the last committee in that series

- it ends, after completing those reviews (it is a project)

 

i think a lot of things get easier once that basic clarification is made.
decisions about the skills of the group, tasks it takes on, expected
deliverables, etc. all get a lot clearer.  perhaps we could frame the
question the the Council this way?

 

mikey

 

In addition the two bullet points - at least from my point of view - do not
limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.

 

Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we
could achieve in Durban a general "go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope"
by the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete
suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.

 

See my comments below


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 

 

From: Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM

To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>


Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council
Chair re SCI Charter

 

Dear SCI members,

 

As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft
message alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues
concerning the SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in
Durban.

 

Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan
------------------------

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)
will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.
One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have
reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to
include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the
SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  After
discussing possible updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance
from the GNSO Council as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a
review of the procedures developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or
whether the GNSO Council intends for the SCI to address other procedural
issues not related to the improvements process. WUK: One such example might
be the re-submission of a motion, which is an issue the Council asked the
SCI to address and for which the SCI currently is considering revised
procedures.

 

The current Charter states:

"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be
responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of
recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy
Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team
(PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

*	On request for those recommendations that have been identified to
present immediate problems 
*	On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify
possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the
SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"

 

The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect
to the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it
has completed the second bullet above from the Charter? Or Should the SCI
continue indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by
the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council? 

 

It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the
SCI can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to
discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
<http://www.haven2.com/> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn, etc.) 

 

 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
<http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn, etc.) 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130708/f3c36538/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Mon Jul  8 19:17:58 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:17:58 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for August Meeting
In-Reply-To: <CDF73ACC.13D86%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CE00883F.14267%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

Please see below the proposed agenda for the August meeting for your review.
It also is posted to the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2+July+2013> .  The meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. -- 12:00 PST ,
15:00 EST,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET.  A meeting reminder will be sent prior
to the meeting.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Proposed Agenda 06 August 2013 SCI Meeting:
1.  Roll call (1 min)

2.  Statements of Interest (2 min)

3.  Approval of the agenda (2 min)

4.  Re-submitting a motion (15 mins)

5.  SCI charter revision  (20 mins)

6.  Working Group self assessment (15 mins)

7.  AOB (5 mins)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130708/2c72fa17/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20130708/2c72fa17/smime.p7s>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Mon Jul  8 23:18:45 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 19:18:45 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter considerations
Message-ID: <001b01ce7c31$80ffc2d0$82ff4870$@rnapartners.com>

Dear Jonathan,

 

As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)
will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.
One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have
reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to
include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the
SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  SCI members
have realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether
the scope of the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures
developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the SCI should
also address other procedural issues not related to the improvements
process. 

 

The current Charter states:

"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be
responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of
recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy
Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team
(PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

.    On request for those recommendations that have been identified to
present immediate problems

.    On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify
possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the
SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"

 

The SCI also seeks guidance from the Council with respect to the duration of
the SCI work. Should the SCI be considered the last in the series of
committees that arose from the Board review and thus cease to exist when it
has completed its review of that work?  Or should the SCI continue
indefinitely, as an ongoing body that considers procedural questions as
raised by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?

 

The SCI requests that these fundamental questions be addressed before the
SCI considers revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to
discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130708/b4e84215/attachment.html>

From ken.bour at verizon.net  Tue Jul  9 21:47:59 2013
From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour)
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:47:59 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft v3)
Message-ID: <018201ce7ced$fb535940$f1fa0bc0$@verizon.net>

SCI Team Members:

 

I recognize that everyone is busy especially in this period just before the
next ICANN meeting. 

 

In order to keep moving forward on the WG Self-Assessment project, I propose
that I begin the process of programming the current questionnaire into an
online tool. In this case, after evaluating the pros/cons, I am inclined to
utilize QuestionPro <http://www.questionpro.com/>  because of its excellent
features including security protection and back-end reporting.

 

Once it is operational, I would then suggest that we open the questionnaire
to a limited test. One suggestion would be to invite 6-10 individuals who
have recently served on a Working Group and ask them if they would complete
the instrument and, then, comment upon its ease-of-use, time (< 30 minutes),
clarity, et al. 

 

Unless I hear differently, I will begin building an online version in
QuestionPro so that the SCI can see how this instrument will actually appear
to future Working Group members who participate in the self-assessment. 

 

Taking this action does not mean that we cannot continue making further
changes and improvements to the questionnaire, but my sense is that it we
are ready to proceed to this next phase of the project. 

 

Ken Bour

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Ken Bour
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Draft
v3)

 

hi Ken,

 

i'm on board with all your proposed changes.  i think this is getting really
close to "ship it!" for me.  :-)

 

mikey

 

 

On Jul 4, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Ken Bour <ken.bour at verizon.net> wrote:





SCI Team Members:

 

After our last teleconference (2 July), I continued my own evaluation of the
questionnaire looking for ways to sharpen and improve it including
addressing your feedback received thus far. I developed a new Draft v3 for
your review at:  <https://community.icann.org/x/eEZ-Ag>
https://community.icann.org/x/eEZ-Ag.

 

In this version of the questionnaire, I made the following substantive
changes:

1.	The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to
address Ron's observation about the expected variability in team members'
knowledge/skill.
2.	Tangential to Ron's concern, I added a new disclaimer in the note
just before Section II to explain how respondents might approach the
challenge of assigning individual ratings to complex dimensions.
3.	In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and
changed the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback
entered as a comment to Draft v2.
4.	I elected to break out Personal Dimensions and Demographics into two
independent sections. Each one represents a logically distinct category;
furthermore, the table headings simply did not apply correctly to the
Demographics questions.
5.	Added a third question to the Personal Dimensions which I labeled
"Willingness-to-Serve" for want of a better noun. This question seeks to
understand whether the WG experience influences one's propensity to serve
again in the future assuming all other conditions (e.g., topic, need/fit,
availability) are favorable. In other words, are we systematically building
or eroding volunteer capacity?

 

I look forward to your feedback on this third iteration of the WG
Self-Assessment instrument.

 

As you may know, I will not be present in Durban; however, if the team
wishes to continue working on this project and would like my involvement, I
am willing to join in any/all sessions remotely if technical conditions
(e.g., room connections) permit.

 

Regards,

 

Ken

 

 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130709/eab0c63b/attachment.html>

From jrobinson at afilias.info  Wed Jul 10 13:46:57 2013
From: jrobinson at afilias.info (Jonathan Robinson)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:46:57 +0100
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter considerations
In-Reply-To: <001b01ce7c31$80ffc2d0$82ff4870$@rnapartners.com>
References: <001b01ce7c31$80ffc2d0$82ff4870$@rnapartners.com>
Message-ID: <08f301ce7d73$fa895ba0$ef9c12e0$@afilias.info>

Dear Ron,


Thank-you for the this update and the questions contained therein.

 

I will forward on to the Council and look forward to discussing this with
you in Durban and beyond if necessary.


Best wishes,

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] 
Sent: 09 July 2013 00:19
To: jrobinson at afilias.info
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: SCI Charter considerations
Importance: High

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)
will provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.
One of issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have
reported previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to
include procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the
SCI also has considered whether other updates are necessary.  SCI members
have realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council as to whether
the scope of the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures
developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the SCI should
also address other procedural issues not related to the improvements
process. 

 

The current Charter states:

"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be
responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of
recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy
Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team
(PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

.    On request for those recommendations that have been identified to
present immediate problems

.    On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify
possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the
SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)"

 

The SCI also seeks guidance from the Council with respect to the duration of
the SCI work. Should the SCI be considered the last in the series of
committees that arose from the Board review and thus cease to exist when it
has completed its review of that work?  Or should the SCI continue
indefinitely, as an ongoing body that considers procedural questions as
raised by the GNSO Council or a group Chartered by the Council?

 

The SCI requests that these fundamental questions be addressed before the
SCI considers revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to
discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130710/219b0797/attachment.html>

From ken.bour at verizon.net  Thu Jul 11 20:05:22 2013
From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:05:22 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Now Online
Message-ID: <002101ce7e71$fa297bf0$ee7c73d0$@verizon.net>

SCI Team Members:

 

As I indicated in my last email message to the SCI list, I have completed
programming the Draft v3 WG Self-Assessment questionnaire within QuestionPro
<http://www.questionpro.com/>  (QP) for which ICANN maintains an active
membership account. 

 

I created an illustrative Working Group called "SCI Test," which can be
accessed at: http://scitestwg.questionpro.com. Unless we elect to make any
subsequent changes, this is exactly how the online questionnaire would
appear to a prospective WG member providing a self-assessment. 

 

I understand that many, if not most of you, are shortly en route to Durban,
South Africa for the ICANN meeting; however, if you have an opportunity to
take a test drive between now and our next SCI teleconference (6 Aug),
please feel free to do so. If you would like to invite any other Durban
attendees to test the online questionnaire, such additional feedback would
also be welcome. Please be assured that any data entered is considered
"test" only and will be discarded once we complete this final design phase. 

 

If you have any suggestions or comments about the instrument, language,
methodology, online presentation, etc., you can use the questionnaire's
free-form text fields to document them or, if you prefer, send them to the
SCI email list. I will browse through each response submitted and collect
all feedback until we deactivate this informal test. Please note that you
will need to click the "Record My Answers!" button on the last page in order
to commit a complete questionnaire to the QP database. 

 

Once we are satisfied with the final product, perhaps we can find a recently
disbanded Working Group that will agree to be our first customer as a way of
putting the entire process, including analysis, through an exhaustive test. 

 

Regards,

 

Ken Bour

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130711/a7873faa/attachment.html>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Thu Jul 11 22:45:44 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:45:44 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire
 Now Online
Message-ID: <ynh46nvlqwj1b5c136kxdb79.1373582744337@email.android.com>

Thanks for this update, Ken. Indeed, en route to Durbin now, but did want ?to thank you for the work and encourage Committee Members to follow your recommemdation to test drive the survey at everyone's soonest convenience.?

Kind regards,

RA



Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com?

-------- Original message --------
From: Ken Bour <ken.bour at verizon.net> 
Date: 07/11/2013  16:05  (GMT-05:00) 
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org 
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Now Online 
 
SCI Team Members:
?
As I indicated in my last email message to the SCI list, I have completed programming the Draft v3 WG Self-Assessment questionnaire within QuestionPro (QP) for which ICANN maintains an active membership account.
?
I created an illustrative Working Group called ?SCI Test,? which can be accessed at: http://scitestwg.questionpro.com. Unless we elect to make any subsequent changes, this is exactly how the online questionnaire would appear to a prospective WG member providing a self-assessment.
?
I understand that many, if not most of you, are shortly en route to Durban, South Africa for the ICANN meeting; however, if you have an opportunity to take a test drive between now and our next SCI teleconference (6 Aug), please feel free to do so. If you would like to invite any other Durban attendees to test the online questionnaire, such additional feedback would also be welcome. Please be assured that any data entered is considered ?test? only and will be discarded once we complete this final design phase.
?
If you have any suggestions or comments about the instrument, language, methodology, online presentation, etc., you can use the questionnaire?s free-form text fields to document them or, if you prefer, send them to the SCI email list. I will browse through each response submitted and collect all feedback until we deactivate this informal test. Please note that you will need to click the ?Record My Answers!? button on the last page in order to commit a complete questionnaire to the QP database.
?
Once we are satisfied with the final product, perhaps we can find a recently disbanded Working Group that will agree to be our first customer as a way of putting the entire process, including analysis, through an exhaustive test.
?
Regards,
?
Ken Bour
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130711/f7c46046/attachment.html>

From mike at haven2.com  Fri Jul 12 13:24:28 2013
From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:24:28 -0500
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Now Online
In-Reply-To: <002101ce7e71$fa297bf0$ee7c73d0$@verizon.net>
References: <002101ce7e71$fa297bf0$ee7c73d0$@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <F0E55E49-AB43-49AD-B6E7-4DD17E9FED07@haven2.com>

hi Ken,

i ran through it.  i like it.  gets a "publish it" thumbs up from me.

m

On Jul 11, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Ken Bour <ken.bour at verizon.net> wrote:

> SCI Team Members:
>  
> As I indicated in my last email message to the SCI list, I have completed programming the Draft v3 WG Self-Assessment questionnaire withinQuestionPro (QP) for which ICANN maintains an active membership account.
>  
> I created an illustrative Working Group called ?SCI Test,? which can be accessed at: http://scitestwg.questionpro.com. Unless we elect to make any subsequent changes, this is exactly how the online questionnaire would appear to a prospective WG member providing a self-assessment.
>  
> I understand that many, if not most of you, are shortly en route to Durban, South Africa for the ICANN meeting; however, if you have an opportunity to take a test drive between now and our next SCI teleconference (6 Aug), please feel free to do so. If you would like to invite any other Durban attendees to test the online questionnaire, such additional feedback would also be welcome. Please be assured that any data entered is considered ?test? only and will be discarded once we complete this final design phase.
>  
> If you have any suggestions or comments about the instrument, language, methodology, online presentation, etc., you can use the questionnaire?s free-form text fields to document them or, if you prefer, send them to the SCI email list. I will browse through each response submitted and collect all feedback until we deactivate this informal test. Please note that you will need to click the ?Record My Answers!? button on the last page in order to commit a complete questionnaire to the QP database.
>  
> Once we are satisfied with the final product, perhaps we can find a recently disbanded Working Group that will agree to be our first customer as a way of putting the entire process, including analysis, through an exhaustive test.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Ken Bour
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130712/a753322d/attachment.html>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Jul 13 15:33:04 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 17:33:04 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council
Message-ID: <5D4F43B8-0938-4892-9452-146C45E2A11E@acm.org>



I want to lodger a strong objection to the report given on the SCI, as the issue of full consensus decision was brought to the council as if it was the position of the SCI. This was totally unacceptable especially since in our last conversations the SCi dropped this proposal from the new charter work.

I see this as an abuse of his position.

avri




From randruff at rnapartners.com  Sat Jul 13 16:57:56 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:57:56 +0200
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council
Message-ID: <ilg3ep7h1elnck0ageo1o6yl.1373734676399@email.android.com>

Avri and all,

Your comments are unfounded. Following your forceful intervention in response to my report, I made clear my coments. I encourage you to review the transcript as and when it comes available and work through your constituency to achieve the outcome you so desire.

RA


Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com?

-------- Original message --------
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 
Date: 07/13/2013  17:33  (GMT+02:00) 
To: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org 
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council 
 


I want to lodger a strong objection to the report given on the SCI, as the issue of full consensus decision was brought to the council as if it was the position of the SCI. This was totally unacceptable especially since in our last conversations the SCi dropped this proposal from the new charter work.

I see this as an abuse of his position.

avri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130713/ef4398c8/attachment.html>

From AAikman at lrlaw.com  Mon Jul 15 21:41:03 2013
From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:41:03 +0000
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council
In-Reply-To: <ilg3ep7h1elnck0ageo1o6yl.1373734676399@email.android.com>
References: <ilg3ep7h1elnck0ageo1o6yl.1373734676399@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD3C953@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>

Ron and Avri,
I was not able to participate remotely in the session on Saturday so I don?t know what happened.  My recollection is the team that was working on the Charter said it was sticking with full consensus and that the Charter was not amended in this regard and that the SCI was not recommending any amendment in this regard.  Please advise.
Anne

[cid:image001.gif at 01CE8169.54E5AB50]

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] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 9:58 AM
To: avri at acm.org; Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council

Avri and all,

Your comments are unfounded. Following your forceful intervention in response to my report, I made clear my coments. I encourage you to review the transcript as and when it comes available and work through your constituency to achieve the outcome you so desire.

RA


Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>



-------- Original message --------
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Date: 07/13/2013 17:33 (GMT+02:00)
To: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council




I want to lodger a strong objection to the report given on the SCI, as the issue of full consensus decision was brought to the council as if it was the position of the SCI. This was totally unacceptable especially since in our last conversations the SCi dropped this proposal from the new charter work.

I see this as an abuse of his position.

avri




________________________________

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/20130715/e1044ad2/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/20130715/e1044ad2/image001.gif>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Tue Jul 16 08:06:56 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:06:56 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council
In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD3C953@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
References: <ilg3ep7h1elnck0ageo1o6yl.1373734676399@email.android.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD3C953@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com>
Message-ID: <003401ce81fb$75fb4920$61f1db60$@rnapartners.com>

Anne,

 

We will address this on our next call, but by way of this email I am asking Julie to ask the GNSO Secretariat to provide the transcript of my presentation to the SCI list as background to that discussion.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

 <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com 

 

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 17:41
To: 'Ron Andruff'; avri at acm.org; Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council

 

Ron and Avri,

I was not able to participate remotely in the session on Saturday so I don?t know what happened.  My recollection is the team that was working on the Charter said it was sticking with full consensus and that the Charter was not amended in this regard and that the SCI was not recommending any amendment in this regard.  Please advise.

Anne

 




Anne E. Aikman-Scalese


Of Counsel


Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700


One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611


 <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> Map to Parking Garage


Tel (520) 629-4428 ? Fax (520) 879-4725


 <mailto:AAikman at LRLaw.com> AAikman at LRLaw.com ?  <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman

 


P 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> 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 Ron Andruff
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 9:58 AM
To:  <mailto:avri at acm.org> avri at acm.org;  <mailto:Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org> Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council

 

Avri and all,

 

Your comments are unfounded. Following your forceful intervention in response to my report, I made clear my comments. I encourage you to review the transcript as and when it comes available and work through your constituency to achieve the outcome you so desire.

 

RA

 

 

Ron Andruff
 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 




-------- Original message --------
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org> > 
Date: 07/13/2013 17:33 (GMT+02:00) 
To: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>  
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Ron's report to the GNSO Council 




I want to lodger a strong objection to the report given on the SCI, as the issue of full consensus decision was brought to the council as if it was the position of the SCI. This was totally unacceptable especially since in our last conversations the SCi dropped this proposal from the new charter work.

I see this as an abuse of his position.

avri

 

  _____  

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to  <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> 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/20130716/aaa84317/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/20130716/aaa84317/image001.gif>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Tue Jul 16 10:16:56 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 06:16:56 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FW: SCI transcript - Saturday 13 July 2013 - Durban
In-Reply-To: <CE0ADFA5.281B6%julia.charvolen@icann.org>
References: <CE0ADFA5.281B6%julia.charvolen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <009301ce820d$9d9c1240$d8d436c0$@rnapartners.com>

Dear Committee Members,

 

We will discuss this on our next call, however as previously noted please
find the transcript attached.

 

Thanks to Julie and Julia for your prompt response on this matter.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>  

 

From: Julia Charvolen [mailto:julia.charvolen at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 05:32
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-secs at icann.org
Subject: SCI transcript - Saturday 13 July 2013 - Durban

 

Dear Ron,

 

Please find the transcript for the SCI meeting held on Saturday 13 July 2013
at 17:30 local time.

 

Thank you,

Best regards,

Julia Charvolen

For GNSO Secretariat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130716/2f845c28/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Transcript SCI - 13 July 2013.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 70656 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130716/2f845c28/TranscriptSCI-13July2013.doc>

From ken.bour at verizon.net  Thu Jul 18 20:29:53 2013
From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:29:53 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Recommended Amendments to WG Guidelines and Summary
Message-ID: <009601ce83f5$8f881750$ae9845f0$@verizon.net>

SCI Team Members:

 

I understand that most of you have not had the time or opportunity to review the online WG Self-Assessment DRAFT that I forwarded just prior to the Durban meeting. For your convenience, that link, again, is: http://scitestwg.questionpro.com. Feel free to complete the questionnaire and provide any feedback via the embedded comment sections or this email list. As of today, two committee members have tested the instrument (Angie & Mikey) and I thank them for their reviews. 

 

In the meantime, while we continue evaluating the proposed design and online questionnaire presentation, I took the liberty of recommending specific modifications to the WG Guidelines <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>  document (and its Summary <http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>  version) consistent with having a formal self-assessment questionnaire available for Chartering Organizations to utilize. 

 

For brevity?s sake, I only included the sections of those documents which, in my judgment, would need to be modified. My suggested changes are presented below in maroon text. 

 

Procedurally, given the way online survey forms work, I think it would be best to copy the master questionnaire and create a new link (URL) for each WG. For example, if the GNSO Council wishes to request self-assessment feedback from the IRTP Part D WG, we might create a link such as http://irtp-part-d.questionpro.com (sample only). The downside is that the QuestionPro link would change for each WG; however, the upside is that (a) there should be no confusion or misdirection about which questionnaire is applicable to which WG, (b) it would be straightforward to store and subsequently archive the results under that specific identification, and (c) the link could be made active/inactive based upon when that WG?s members are invited to complete the form. 

 

What I propose is that, when a WG Charter is written, the CO could merely specify that it wants participants to complete a formal Self-Assessment. During the WG?s actual closure process, the Chair (via Staff reminder) would provide the exact questionnaire link to WG members along with the timeframe (open and close dates). A Staff Administrator, such as myself, would have the names of WG members and could monitor QuestionPro to see who has and has not completed the questionnaire. Reminders could then be sent out periodically to those who had not yet registered their feedback. At the conclusion of the survey period, the Staff Administrator would compile the results and produce a report for the CO and, upon approval, publish it on the Wiki and/or other locations as deemed appropriate. 

 

I welcome your feedback.

 

Ken Bour

 

Working Group Guidelines (ANNEX 1 <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>  - GNSO Operating Procedures) 

 

2.1.4.3: Items for Review 

At the first meeting of the WG or as soon thereafter as practicable, the following documents should be reviewed in order to ensure all members have a common understanding of the WG?s mission, goals, objectives, deliverables, decision-making process and timeframes: Charter, Working Group Guidelines and any other documents relevant for the WGs discussion (e.g., Policy Development Process Guidebook, Issues Paper). These documents are normally transmitted to the WG prior to the first meeting. It is required that WGs develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones set out in the WG Charter. If a WG does not develop a work plan, it will need to provide a justification to the Chartering Organization. 

 

If the Chartering Organization has specified that it would like the WG to complete a formal Self-Assessment, it may be helpful to participants to review the questionnaire (see Section 7.0) in advance so that, as plans unfold and deliberations proceed, members have an understanding of the information that will be asked at the conclusion of the team?s work. 

 

The WG Chair may use the following checklist for assistance: (see Addendum) for further details.

 

Addendum: Chair Checklist [Note: given its small size, I suggest eliminating the separate Addendum and inserting the table here in Section 2.1.4.3]


Checklist

Yes/No


Have all WG members submitted Statements of Interest? 

 


Introduction of WG members 

 


Inform members that WG will operate under the principles of transparency and openness (i.e., mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings are recorded / transcribed) 

 


Review of WG?s mission, goals, objectives, deliverables, decision-making process, timeframes and any other documents relevant for the WG?s discussion 

 


Review WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (see Section 7.0)

 


Development of a work plan 

 


Schedule for future meetings of the WG 

 

 

Section 5.0: Products and Outputs

The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the Charter such as a report, recommendations, guidelines, self-assessment or defined by the process under which the WG operates (e.g., Policy Development Process). In addition, the Working Group might decide that additional products or outputs are required in order to carry out its Charter in an efficient and productive manner such as a statement of work or a project plan. Working Groups should be encouraged to review products and outputs from other WGs and/or consult with ICANN Staff to decide what additional products or outputs would be advisable to develop. Links to some examples of products and outputs produced by other GNSO Working Groups can be found hereunder:

?         [Skipping other bullets for brevity]

?         WG Self-Assessment (see Section 7.0)

 


6.2.4.4: Closure and Working Group Self-Assessment 

This section of the Charter should describe any instructions for WG final closure including any feedback and/or self-assessment that is requested by the Chartering Organization. This section might also indicate if there is any specific format, template, or prescribed manner in which the feedback is to be provided; for example, a recommended questionnaire (illustrative) is included in Section 7.0 and can be made available online for WG members to complete at the appropriate time. 

 

[NEW] Section 7.0: Working Group Self-Assessment

 

A WG Self-Assessment instrument has been developed as a means for Chartering Organizations to formally request feedback from a WG as part of its closure process. WG members are asked a series of questions about the team?s inputs, processes (e.g., norms, decision-making, logistics), and outputs as well as other relevant dimensions and participant experiences. Screenshots of the questionnaire have been assembled into a PDF (see link below) so that WG participants can review, in advance, how it is designed and what specific information will be solicited. 

 

During the WG?s closure process, coordinating with the Chair, Staff will provide a unique link (URL) to the online questionnaire along with open and close dates and any specific instructions. Staff will then perform the following actions: 

?         Monitor the online process providing status updates to the WG Chair;

?         Provide technical assistance to WG members if requested;

?         Notify the Chair when all team members have completed the questionnaire; and, following the close date,

?         Summarize the feedback in a written report to the Chartering Organization. 

 

Link to WG Self-Assessment (illustrative PDF): [Note: the PDF link (TBD) would be maintained on the GNSO website <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures>  together with ANNEX 1. For now, I have attached an example of the PDF based on the current draft questionnaire]. 

 

 

Working Group Guidelines Summary

 

2. First meeting of the Working Group 

The first meeting of the Working Group should address the following issues: 

?         Introductions - members of the Working Group should be provided with the opportunity, at the start of the first meeting, to share information regarding interests, background, skills, experience, especially as related to any requirements in the Charter. 

?         Members of the Working Group should be informed that all Working Groups are normally expected to operate under the principles of transparency and openness, which means, inter alia, that mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings are normally recorded and/or transcribed, and Statements of Interest (SOIs) are required from Working Group participants which will be publicly posted. 

?         Election of the WG Leaders ? Normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. A working Group may elect to have co-chairs, vice-chairs. Once selected, a working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). 

?         Items for review - At the first meeting of the WG or as soon thereafter as practicable, the following documents should be reviewed in order to ensure all members have a common understanding of the WG?s mission, goals, objectives, deliverables, decision-making process and timeframes: Charter, Working Group Guidelines and any other documents relevant for the WGs discussion (e.g., Policy Development Process Guidebook, Issues Paper). It is required that WGs develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones set out in the WG Charter. If the Chartering Organization has specified that it would like the WG to complete a formal Self-Assessment, it may be helpful to participants to review the questionnaire (see Section 7.0) in advance so that, as plans unfold and deliberations proceed, members have an understanding of the information that will be asked at the conclusion of the team?s work. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130718/32949a7a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Illustrative).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 850057 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130718/32949a7a/WGSelf-AssessmentQuestionnaireIllustrative.pdf>

From avri at acm.org  Mon Jul 22 03:49:08 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:49:08 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI transcript - Saturday 13 July 2013 - Durban
In-Reply-To: <009301ce820d$9d9c1240$d8d436c0$@rnapartners.com>
References: <CE0ADFA5.281B6%julia.charvolen@icann.org> <009301ce820d$9d9c1240$d8d436c0$@rnapartners.com>
Message-ID: <55786543-249F-4459-9D0D-0668D91613FE@acm.org>



On 16 Jul 2013, at 06:16, Ron Andruff wrote:

> <Transcript SCI - 13 July 2013.doc>


My specific remarks refer to:

"
Within that dialogue and discussion one of the issues that was bought up -- in fact I was the one it bought it forward -- was the issue of whether or not we should be considering the element of full consensus versus (rough) consensus. And we had discussions about that internally but, again, as our charter needs to determine this and we need to refine it, I wanted just to bring that back to the table for the Council's consideration as well.
"

This was an issue that the committee had decided not to bring forward in the revised charter.
As chair it was you job to accurately report our status.
This does not do that. 
The SCI did decide to bring this to the Council as an open issue.
Yet you presumed to do so on your own.

When it comes time for the council to review the charter an it does public comments would have been the right time to do this.  Instead you put your own issues forward as a still open issue that the SCI wanted the council to consider.

I believed then and I beleive now that this was transgressive behavior for a chair who did not get his way in the committee, and this I continue to object to it.

I also beleive that as chair you do not control when we speak of a subject.  Chairing is an service task, and if the members want to talk about something on the list, I see no vantage point from which you have the authority to stifle that discussion.

This is not a regular working group.  This is a group in which each of us participates as the representative of our SGs and Cs.  As Chair you were elected to represent that group and not your own interests in the guise of an official report to the council.

avri




From avri at acm.org  Mon Jul 22 12:30:52 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:30:52 -0400
Subject: Corrected text on problematic quote Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI transcript - Saturday 13 July 2013 - Durban
In-Reply-To: <55786543-249F-4459-9D0D-0668D91613FE@acm.org>
References: <CE0ADFA5.281B6%julia.charvolen@icann.org> <009301ce820d$9d9c1240$d8d436c0$@rnapartners.com> <55786543-249F-4459-9D0D-0668D91613FE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <B46F7E60-A2E1-45B5-83DC-93730934C566@acm.org>



On 21 Jul 2013, at 23:49, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> On 16 Jul 2013, at 06:16, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 
>> <Transcript SCI - 13 July 2013.doc>
> 
> 
> My specific remarks refer to:
> 
> "
> Within that dialogue and discussion one of the issues that was bought up -- in fact I was the one it bought it forward -- was the issue of whether or not we should be considering the element of full consensus versus (rough) consensus. And we had discussions about that internally but, again, as our charter needs to determine this and we need to refine it, I wanted just to bring that back to the table for the Council's consideration as well.
> "
> 
> This was an issue that the committee had decided not to bring forward in the revised charter.
> As chair it was you job to accurately report our status.
> This does not do that. 
> The SCI did decide to bring this to the Council as an open issue.

Correction.  The SCI did NOT decide to bring this forward to the Council as an open issue.

> Yet you presumed to do so on your own.
> 
> When it comes time for the council to review the charter as it does public comments would have been the right time to do this.  Instead you put your own issues forward as a still open issue that the SCI wanted the council to consider.
> 
> I believed then and I beleive now that this was transgressive behavior for a chair who did not get his way in the committee, and thus I continue to object to it.
> 
> I also beleive that as chair you do not control when we speak of a subject.  Chairing is an service task, and if the members want to talk about something on the list, I see no vantage point from which you have the authority to stifle that discussion.
> 
> This is not a regular working group.  This is a group in which each of us participates as the representative of our SGs and Cs.  As Chair you were elected to represent that group and not your own interests in the guise of an official report to the council.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 




From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Wed Jul 24 17:32:51 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:32:51 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions from GNSO Council Wrap Up Session
Message-ID: <CE158803.14C8C%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

The GNSO Council discussed several issues relating to the SCI at its wrap up
session on Thursday, 18 July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.  See the
transcript at: 
http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-18jul1
3-en.pdf.

In particular, the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter, which resulted in
the following actions:
1. The  GNSO Council agreed that the SCI for now is to be a 'standing
committee' and the charter should be amended accordingly if it is not clear
from the current wording.
2. On decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making
Decisions), the Council agreed to consider this issue further on the mailing
list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of
one or the other with the mailing list (this will be reflected in the action
items). Jeff was also asked to provide in writing his contribution with
regard to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full
consensus.
I have attached for discussion during our call on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at
19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET) the
version of the charter as it stood prior to the changes suggested by Mikey,
since I think that version reflects the status of the SCI as a 'standing
committee'.  However, if this is not clear in the current version, we can
discuss how to clarify it.  In addition, I will share any discussions
concerning the SCI decision-making process that may subsequently appear on
the GNSO Council list.

In addition, the Council has added two new issues for the SCI to consider:
1. Voting: The option of voting by email.
2. Procedural waiver: Whether a provision / waiver should be included in the
GNSO Operating Procedures that in certain circumstances would specifically
allow the GNSO Council to bypass its procedures (for example in the case of
non-objection). 
If there were SCI members present during the wrap-up session please feel
free to comment on, add to, or amend what I have reported above.

Best regards,
Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130724/b74ceded/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Standard Methodology for Making Decisions.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 137825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130724/b74ceded/StandardMethodologyforMakingDecisions.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/20130724/b74ceded/smime.p7s>

From julia.charvolen at icann.org  Thu Jul 25 07:59:40 2013
From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:59:40 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Meeting Invitation: Standing Committee on Improvements
 Implementation - Tuesday 6 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC
Message-ID: <CE16A78C.28BA9%julia.charvolen@icann.org>

Dear All,



The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Tuesday 6 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour.


12:00 PDT , 15:00 EDT,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET


For other times:

http://tinyurl.com/pnvzfs4


Adobe Connect:

http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/



Dial-in details are below.



If you require a dial-out, please email us (gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>) your preferred contact number.


____________________________________________________________________________

Participant passcode: SCI



For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.

____________________________________________________________________________

Dial in numbers:

Country                             Toll Numbers          Freephone/Toll Free Number



ARGENTINA                                                   0800-777-0519

AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA                            43-1-92-81-113           0800-005-259

BELGIUM                            32-2-400-9861            0800-3-8795

BRAZIL                                                      0800-7610651

CHILE                                                       1230-020-2863

CHINA*                             86-400-810-4789          10800-712-1670

                                                            10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA                                                    01800-9-156474

CZECH REPUBLIC                     420-2-25-98-56-64        800-700-177

DENMARK                            45-7014-0284             8088-8324

ESTONIA                                                     800-011-1093

FINLAND             Land Line:     106-33-203               0-800-9-14610

FINLAND             Mobile:        09-106-33-203            0-800-9-14610

FRANCE              LYON:          33-4-26-69-12-85         080-511-1496

FRANCE              MARSEILLE:     33-4-86-06-00-85         080-511-1496

FRANCE              PARIS:         33-1-70-70-60-72         080-511-1496

GERMANY                            49-69-2222-20362         0800-664-4247

GREECE                             30-80-1-100-0687         00800-12-7312

HONG KONG                          852-3001-3863            800-962-856

HUNGARY                                                     06-800-12755

INDIA                                                       000-800-852-1268

INDONESIA                                                   001-803-011-3982

IRELAND                            353-1-246-7646           1800-992-368

ISRAEL                                                      1-80-9216162

ITALY                              39-02-3600-6007          800-986-383

JAPAN               OSAKA:         81-6-7739-4799           0066-33-132439

JAPAN               TOKYO:         81-3-5539-5191           0066-33-132439

LATVIA                                                      8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG                         352-27-000-1364

MALAYSIA                                                    1-800-81-3065

MEXICO                                                      001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS                        31-20-718-8588           0800-023-4378

NEW ZEALAND                        64-9-970-4771            0800-447-722

NORWAY                             47-21-590-062            800-15157

PANAMA                                                      011-001-800-5072065

PERU                                                        0800-53713

PHILIPPINES                        63-2-858-3716

POLAND                                                      00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL                                                    8008-14052

RUSSIA                                                      8-10-8002-0144011

SINGAPORE                          65-6883-9230             800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC                    421-2-322-422-25

SOUTH AFRICA                                                080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA                        82-2-6744-1083           00798-14800-7352

SPAIN                              34-91-414-25-33          800-300-053

SWEDEN                             46-8-566-19-348          0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND                        41-44-580-6398           0800-120-032

TAIWAN                             886-2-2795-7379          00801-137-797

THAILAND                                                    001-800-1206-66056

UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029

URUGUAY                                                     000-413-598-3421

USA                                1-517-345-9004           866-692-5726

VENEZUELA                                                   0800-1-00-3702



*Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider.



Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.



----------------------------





Thank you

Kind regards,

Julia Charvolen

For GNSO Secretariat
















-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130725/c1ade873/attachment.html>

From julie.hedlund at icann.org  Thu Jul 25 14:46:36 2013
From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:46:36 -0700
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Attachment: Actions from GNSO Council Wrap Up Session
In-Reply-To: <CE158803.14C8C%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CE16B25B.14D3B%julie.hedlund@icann.org>

Dear SCI members,

Here is the attachment that I meant to send.

Best regards,
Julie

From:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date:  Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:32 PM
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions from GNSO Council Wrap Up Session

Dear SCI members,

The GNSO Council discussed several issues relating to the SCI at its wrap up
session on Thursday, 18 July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.  See the
transcript at: 
http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-18jul1
3-en.pdf.

In particular, the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter, which resulted in
the following actions:
1. The  GNSO Council agreed that the SCI for now is to be a 'standing
committee' and the charter should be amended accordingly if it is not clear
from the current wording.
2. On decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making
Decisions), the Council agreed to consider this issue further on the mailing
list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of
one or the other with the mailing list (this will be reflected in the action
items). Jeff was also asked to provide in writing his contribution with
regard to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full
consensus.
I have attached for discussion during our call on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at
19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET) the
version of the charter as it stood prior to the changes suggested by Mikey,
since I think that version reflects the status of the SCI as a 'standing
committee'.  However, if this is not clear in the current version, we can
discuss how to clarify it.  In addition, I will share any discussions
concerning the SCI decision-making process that may subsequently appear on
the GNSO Council list.

In addition, the Council has added two new issues for the SCI to consider:
1. Voting: The option of voting by email.
2. Procedural waiver: Whether a provision / waiver should be included in the
GNSO Operating Procedures that in certain circumstances would specifically
allow the GNSO Council to bypass its procedures (for example in the case of
non-objection). 
If there were SCI members present during the wrap-up session please feel
free to comment on, add to, or amend what I have reported above.

Best regards,
Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130725/03193db5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCI Charter Revisions - 130724.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 26849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130725/03193db5/SCICharterRevisions-130724.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/20130725/03193db5/smime.p7s>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Fri Jul 26 19:47:07 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:47:07 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions from GNSO Council Wrap Up Session
In-Reply-To: <CE158803.14C8C%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
References: <CE158803.14C8C%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <00cd01ce8a38$ead96340$c08c29c0$@rnapartners.com>

Thank you for this update, Julie.  

 

For those who would like to review the transcript it begins at the end of
page 52 and runs through page 59.

 

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 Julie Hedlund
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 13:33
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions from GNSO Council Wrap Up Session

 

Dear SCI members,

 

The GNSO Council discussed several issues relating to the SCI at its wrap up
session on Thursday, 18 July at the ICANN meeting in Durban.  See the
transcript at:
http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-18jul1
3-en.pdf.

 

In particular, the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter, which resulted in
the following actions:

1.	The  GNSO Council agreed that the SCI for now is to be a 'standing
committee' and the charter should be amended accordingly if it is not clear
from the current wording.
2.	On decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for
Making Decisions), the Council agreed to consider this issue further on the
mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in
support of one or the other with the mailing list (this will be reflected in
the action items). Jeff was also asked to provide in writing his
contribution with regard to why the SCI was initially required to operate
under full consensus.

I have attached for discussion during our call on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at
19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET) the
version of the charter as it stood prior to the changes suggested by Mikey,
since I think that version reflects the status of the SCI as a 'standing
committee'.  However, if this is not clear in the current version, we can
discuss how to clarify it.  In addition, I will share any discussions
concerning the SCI decision-making process that may subsequently appear on
the GNSO Council list.

 

In addition, the Council has added two new issues for the SCI to consider: 

1.	Voting: The option of voting by email.
2.	Procedural waiver: Whether a provision / waiver should be included
in the GNSO Operating Procedures that in certain circumstances would
specifically allow the GNSO Council to bypass its procedures (for example in
the case of non-objection). 

If there were SCI members present during the wrap-up session please feel
free to comment on, add to, or amend what I have reported above.

 

Best regards,

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130726/dd3b343c/attachment.html>

From randruff at rnapartners.com  Fri Jul 26 19:56:10 2013
From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:56:10 -0400
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Now Online
In-Reply-To: <002101ce7e71$fa297bf0$ee7c73d0$@verizon.net>
References: <002101ce7e71$fa297bf0$ee7c73d0$@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <00dd01ce8a3a$2e732f40$8b598dc0$@rnapartners.com>

Thank you for your constant improvements to the Questionnaire, Ken.  I just
took a test drive (but did not record my answers) and was impressed with its
clarity and short time to complete.

 

I urge Committee members to try it out prior to our next meeting on August
6th.

 

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 Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 16:05
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Now
Online

 

SCI Team Members:

 

As I indicated in my last email message to the SCI list, I have completed
programming the Draft v3 WG Self-Assessment questionnaire within QuestionPro
<http://www.questionpro.com/>  (QP) for which ICANN maintains an active
membership account. 

 

I created an illustrative Working Group called "SCI Test," which can be
accessed at: http://scitestwg.questionpro.com. Unless we elect to make any
subsequent changes, this is exactly how the online questionnaire would
appear to a prospective WG member providing a self-assessment. 

 

I understand that many, if not most of you, are shortly en route to Durban,
South Africa for the ICANN meeting; however, if you have an opportunity to
take a test drive between now and our next SCI teleconference (6 Aug),
please feel free to do so. If you would like to invite any other Durban
attendees to test the online questionnaire, such additional feedback would
also be welcome. Please be assured that any data entered is considered
"test" only and will be discarded once we complete this final design phase. 

 

If you have any suggestions or comments about the instrument, language,
methodology, online presentation, etc., you can use the questionnaire's
free-form text fields to document them or, if you prefer, send them to the
SCI email list. I will browse through each response submitted and collect
all feedback until we deactivate this informal test. Please note that you
will need to click the "Record My Answers!" button on the last page in order
to commit a complete questionnaire to the QP database. 

 

Once we are satisfied with the final product, perhaps we can find a recently
disbanded Working Group that will agree to be our first customer as a way of
putting the entire process, including analysis, through an exhaustive test. 

 

Regards,

 

Ken Bour

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20130726/18bc253f/attachment.html>