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

Fri Jul 5 13:40:54 UTC 2013

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 don¹t 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 ³go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope²
> 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>