From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jun 4 18:15:43 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:15:43 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 22 May 2013. The change from the meeting was the re-insertion of "Full Consensus" in the Decision Making Section. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. This item is on the agenda for today's meeting at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT. It also will be posted in the Adobe Connect room. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Proposed Revision - 130522.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26337 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Tue Jun 4 19:00:31 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:00:31 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BE5B9F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Julie, given that J. Scott resigned, did anyone from IPC participate in the discussion or in this revision? Anne [cid:724030019 at 04062013-165D]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: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:16 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 22 May 2013. The change from the meeting was the re-insertion of "Full Consensus" in the Decision Making Section. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. This item is on the agenda for today's meeting at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT. It also will be posted in the Adobe Connect room. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Tue Jun 4 19:47:32 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:47:32 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013 In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BE5B9F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BE5B9F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, this is the revision status as from the point when J. Scott resigned. There hasn?t been work done in between Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:00 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013 Julie, given that J. Scott resigned, did anyone from IPC participate in the discussion or in this revision? 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: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:16 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 22 May 2013. The change from the meeting was the re-insertion of "Full Consensus" in the Decision Making Section. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. This item is on the agenda for today's meeting at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT. It also will be posted in the Adobe Connect room. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jun 4 20:12:04 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:12:04 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Current Activities and Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see the current activities of the SCI and related actions. The next meeting will be determined via a Doodle poll to decide whether to hold the meeting at the recurring monthly time of 02 July at 1900 UTC, or face-to-face in Durban. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes / Actions from 04 June Meeting 1. SCI Charter Revision -- Julie will send a revised version based on the discussion on 04 June. 2. Working Group Self-Assessment -- Ken will draft a self-assessment instrument. 3. Re-Submitting a Motion ? SCI members agree with Option 2, but disagree on which criteria to include; Julie will sent around that option and the criteria for discussion on the list and at the next meeting. 4. Meeting Timing/Durban Meeting -- Julie will do a Doodle poll to decide whether to meet on 02 July or in Durban on 14 July. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jun 4 20:15:53 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:15:53 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Revisions - 130604.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26902 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jun 4 20:27:18 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:27:18 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Next SCI Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's SCI call, we need to decide when to schedule the July SCI meeting. There are two options: 1. The regularly scheduled monthly time (based on the previous Doodle poll): 02 July 2013 at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT 2. In Durban on Sunday, 14 July 2013, at a time TBD. Note that regardless of the time chosen there will be conflicts with existing meetings. Please take the Doodle poll to help us decide at: http://www.doodle.com/d9swee8iisuzggh4 DEADLINE: The poll will close on Friday, 07 June 2013 COB 1800 UTC/1400 EDT/1100 PDT (essentially close of business UTC). Thank you for your assistance and please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jun 4 20:31:22 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:31:22 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Message-ID: Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. 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). Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting. 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: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff >, James Bladel >, "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 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 ] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 4 20:42:42 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:42:42 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <849C172E-D43C-47BB-899E-DD322285630E@acm.org> Hi, I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count. I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda. avri On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear SCI members, > > As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. 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). > > Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting. > > 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: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM > To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel , "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 > > 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] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: 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. From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jun 4 21:18:48 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:18:48 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <849C172E-D43C-47BB-899E-DD322285630E@acm.org> References: <849C172E-D43C-47BB-899E-DD322285630E@acm.org> Message-ID: <012601ce6169$1c784ef0$5568ecd0$@rnapartners.com> Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst clarify that for us? Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how many times a motion can be resubmitted. How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Importance: High Hi, I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count. I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda. avri On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear SCI members, > > As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. 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). > > Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting. > > 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: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM > To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel , "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 > > 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] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: 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. From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Tue Jun 4 21:20:41 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:20:41 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <849C172E-D43C-47BB-899E-DD322285630E@acm.org> References: <849C172E-D43C-47BB-899E-DD322285630E@acm.org> Message-ID: <51AE21E90200005B000AA8EE@smtp.law.unh.edu> I agree with Avri. I also support the Registrars' proposal to add some kind of mechanism to prevent "zombie" motions. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php >>> From: Avri Doria To: Date: 6/4/2013 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Hi, I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count. I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda. avri On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear SCI members, > > As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. 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). > > Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting. > > 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: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM > To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel , "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 > > 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] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: 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: From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue Jun 4 21:26:33 2013 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:26:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <012601ce6169$1c784ef0$5568ecd0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: Ron and Committee Members: Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced And/or (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 calendar months. Thoughts? J. On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" wrote: > >Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this >would >need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst >clarify that for us? > >Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that >will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how >many >times a motion can be resubmitted. > >How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? > >Kind regards, > >RA > >Ron Andruff >RNA Partners >www.rnapartners.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 >To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a >Motion >Importance: High > > >Hi, > >I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 >conditions, >otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. > >Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum >count. > >I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to >be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion >would ever make the consent agenda. > > >avri > > >On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: > >> Dear SCI members, >> >> As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on >re-submission of a motion. 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). >> >> Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda >>at >our next meeting. >> >> 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: , Anne >> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM >> To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel >, "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 >> >> 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] On Behalf Of James M. >Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: >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. > > From mike at haven2.com Tue Jun 4 21:30:15 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:30:15 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05F6822A-454B-4B7B-B8CC-168BDB300A81@haven2.com> hi all, i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid. mikey On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" wrote: > > Ron and Committee Members: > > Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: > > (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced > > And/or > > (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? > > The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably > have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will > be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) > > Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 > calendar months. > > Thoughts? > > J. > > > > > > > On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" wrote: > >> >> Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this >> would >> need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst >> clarify that for us? >> >> Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that >> will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how >> many >> times a motion can be resubmitted. >> >> How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> www.rnapartners.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a >> Motion >> Importance: High >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 >> conditions, >> otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. >> >> Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum >> count. >> >> I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to >> be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion >> would ever make the consent agenda. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: >> >>> Dear SCI members, >>> >>> As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on >> re-submission of a motion. 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). >>> >>> Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda >>> at >> our next meeting. >>> >>> 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: , Anne >>> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM >>> To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel >> , "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 >>> >>> 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] On Behalf Of James M. >> Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: >> 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. >> >> > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jun 4 21:32:33 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:32:33 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013901ce616b$08a63bb0$19f2b310$@rnapartners.com> Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Tue Jun 4 21:35:41 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:35:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <05F6822A-454B-4B7B-B8CC-168BDB300A81@haven2.com> References: <05F6822A-454B-4B7B-B8CC-168BDB300A81@haven2.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BE7270@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> You would have to account for changed circumstances that could occur, e.g. between ICANN meetings or about every quarter. For example, there could be a deadlock and a suspension of a Working Group that might result in the need to introduce the same motion. 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. -----Original Message----- 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: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:30 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion hi all, i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid. mikey On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" wrote: > > Ron and Committee Members: > > Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: > > (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced > > And/or > > (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? > > The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds > probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group > reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) > > Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 > calendar months. > > Thoughts? > > J. > > > > > > > On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" wrote: > >> >> Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this >> would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in >> our midst clarify that for us? >> >> Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one >> that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit >> on how many times a motion can be resubmitted. >> >> How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> www.rnapartners.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >> Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of >> a Motion >> Importance: High >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 >> conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every >> agenda. >> >> Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a >> maximum count. >> >> I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for >> something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a >> resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: >> >>> Dear SCI members, >>> >>> As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the >>> list on >> re-submission of a motion. 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). >>> >>> Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the >>> agenda at >> our next meeting. >>> >>> 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: , Anne >>> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM >>> To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel >> , "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 >>> >>> 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] On Behalf Of James M. >> Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: >> 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. >> >> > > 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 From AAikman at lrlaw.com Tue Jun 4 21:37:30 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:37:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 In-Reply-To: <013901ce616b$08a63bb0$19f2b310$@rnapartners.com> References: <013901ce616b$08a63bb0$19f2b310$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BE7284@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne [cid:050263621 at 04062013-0666]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 Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jun 4 21:43:28 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:43:28 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Message-ID: <016b01ce616c$904a8c50$b0dfa4f0$@rnapartners.com> I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. 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: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julia.charvolen at icann.org Tue Jun 4 21:57:37 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:57:37 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 4 june 2013 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be announced shortly after the result of the Doodle poll. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 at 19:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130604-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun (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 Mary Wong ? NCUC ? Primary Amr Elsadr ? NCUC - Alternate Jennifer Wolfe ? NCA primary Ken Bour ? guest speaker ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Glen de Saint Gery 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 4 June 2013: Ron A:Good afternoon all! Julie Hedlund:Hello Ron Wolf Knoben:Hi all Mary Wong:Hello! Angie Graves:Hi! Anne Aikman-Scalese:Hi - it's Anne Mike O'Connor:on my way in... Amr Elsadr:Hi..., just joined the call. Mike O'Connor:lotta background noise. for everyone or just me? Julia Charvolen:I am asking operator about this Mary Wong:@Mikey, I'm hearing it from Ron's audio. Sounds like road noise ... ? Mike O'Connor:really loud. Mike O'Connor:we can each do it on our own Jennifer Wolfe:Yes, that is working. Mary Wong:And the "g" for Working Group needs to be capitalized. Julie Hedlund:Got it -- thanks Mary. I am updating the document in Word to reflect the changes suggested here. Wolf Knoben:"improvements" just came from the "GNSO improvements project" Ron A:That is also my understanding, Ray. Julie Hedlund:@Ray -- the GNSO Improvements Process started in 2008 and extended I think into 2010. Ray Fassett:thanks Julie, that sounds right to me Jennifer Wolfe:It may be helpful to think of the SCI as a committee in best practices. Avri Doria:apologies, after 4 hours of assorted ICANn calls, this one slipped my mind until someone reminded me i a chat. Anne Aikman-Scalese:IF it falls inside the PDP, isn't that within the original charter? Julie Hedlund:The PDP Manual (the process) is part of the GNSO Operating Procedures and was amended as part of the GNSO Improvements Process -- under the PPSC Anne Aikman-Scalese:I recall someone saying that we would only look at effectiveness of new PDP manual after one year from implementation but everyone assumed that was part of the charter. Ken Bour:I'll drop off the call. Thank you all! I'll get cracking on a draft and will let you know when I think I can have something to review. Julie Hedlund:Thanks Ken for all your help! Ken Bour:Bye for now... Ron A:Thank you Ken Anne Aikman-Scalese:Julie, for the record, IPC does not agree with all of Option 2 and srongly opposes the criteria in 3. and 4. of Option 2 so minutes should reflect this. Thank you, Anne Mike O'Connor:i'd like to lobby that we NOT meet in Durban Bladel:I'm sorry, but I need to drop this call. Mike O'Connor:there are so many meetings already. let's stick with a call in a month Anne Aikman-Scalese:What is Durban time in relation to UTC? Julie Hedlund:Durban is UTC+2 Julie Hedlund:6 hours ahead of the East Coast Avri Doria:i will probably be tied up in ATRT2 meetings most of the time in durban Julia Charvolen:UTC +2 hours Julia Charvolen:for Durban time Julia Charvolen:thank you Julie Julia Charvolen:Doodle poll will be sent shortly Mike O'Connor:we don't know the schedule -- so we can't answer the poll Anne Aikman-Scalese:What about early before the GNSO working session? Avri Doria:i vote against F2F in Durban - except maybe at the bar. Mike O'Connor:+1 bar Mary Wong:@Avri, agree Mary Wong:Bye all! Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Bye. Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Anne Aikman-Scalese:THanks Ron and everyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jun 4 22:21:12 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:21:12 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual In-Reply-To: <016b01ce616c$904a8c50$b0dfa4f0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: Anne and Ron, As I mentioned in the chat room today, under the GNSO Improvements Process, the PDP-WT (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/PDP-WT+Home), as part of the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), was tasked with "reviewing the existing PDP in the Bylaws and recommending changes to the community and Council based on an open community WG approach to the deliberative process." The WT produced a Final Report in September 2011 -- https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405500/PDP-WT+Updated+Fina l+Report+-+FINAL+-+28+September+2011.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=13172015 88000 ? that included the PDP Manual. The PDP Manual was adopted and is incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures as Annex 2 of the Procedures. Under its original charter, the 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." As the PPSC and PDP-WT created the PDP Manual, it would appear to be in scope for the SCI to consider requests for changes to the PDP Manual along the lines stipulated in the Charter, as follows: * 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) I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:43 PM To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. 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: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jun 4 22:32:44 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:32:44 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NOTE re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Next SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: All, A note about the poll. Some have selected both options as "yes". Ideally, we need to make a decision between them because we won't have both meetings. Thus, it would be helpful if there is a preference indicated (perhaps if one is "yes" and one is "if-need-be, or "no" for example). If both options are selected equally (both as "yes") then we may have to go to a poll that allows only one option to be picked. Thanks for your help and sorry if I constructed the poll in a way that is confusing. Julie From: Julie Hedlund Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 4:27 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Next SCI Meeting Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's SCI call, we need to decide when to schedule the July SCI meeting. There are two options: 1. The regularly scheduled monthly time (based on the previous Doodle poll): 02 July 2013 at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT 2. In Durban on Sunday, 14 July 2013, at a time TBD. Note that regardless of the time chosen there will be conflicts with existing meetings. Please take the Doodle poll to help us decide at: http://www.doodle.com/d9swee8iisuzggh4 DEADLINE: The poll will close on Friday, 07 June 2013 COB 1800 UTC/1400 EDT/1100 PDT (essentially close of business UTC). Thank you for your assistance and please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Tue Jun 4 22:43:17 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 22:43:17 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual In-Reply-To: References: <016b01ce616c$904a8c50$b0dfa4f0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BE92DA@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> It appears to me that Mikey's current issue arising in connection with PDP may then in fact be "in scope". Anne [cid:122544222 at 04062013-06C8]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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:21 PM To: Ron Andruff; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Anne and Ron, As I mentioned in the chat room today, under the GNSO Improvements Process, the PDP-WT (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/PDP-WT+Home), as part of the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), was tasked with "reviewing the existing PDP in the Bylaws and recommending changes to the community and Council based on an open community WG approach to the deliberative process." The WT produced a Final Report in September 2011 -- https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405500/PDP-WT+Updated+Final+Report+-+FINAL+-+28+September+2011.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1317201588000 ? that included the PDP Manual. The PDP Manual was adopted and is incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures as Annex 2 of the Procedures. Under its original charter, the 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." As the PPSC and PDP-WT created the PDP Manual, it would appear to be in scope for the SCI to consider requests for changes to the PDP Manual along the lines stipulated in the Charter, as follows: * 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) I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff > Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:43 PM To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne [cid:122544222 at 04062013-06CF]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 Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Tue Jun 4 22:46:54 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:46:54 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual In-Reply-To: <016b01ce616c$904a8c50$b0dfa4f0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. 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: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: List of documents relevant to the SCI - Updated 6 March 2012.doc Type: application/applefile Size: 450 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: List of documents relevant to the SCI - Updated 6 March 2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Tue Jun 4 22:59:55 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 22:59:55 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual In-Reply-To: References: <016b01ce616c$904a8c50$b0dfa4f0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BEA393@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Marika, very helpful. I assume the group that worked on Charter revision did so with reference to these planned projects? Anne [cid:332165922 at 04062013-06D6]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: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:47 PM To: Ron Andruff; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff > Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne [cid:332165922 at 04062013-06DD]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 Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Jun 5 00:45:11 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:45:11 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NOTE re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Next SCI Meeting Message-ID: Not your poor presentation, Julie. It doesn't matter to me for the reasons I noted on the call. Hence, I can attend both.? Those that oppose a meeting in Durban do so for good reasons and will answer accordingly.? So Members should answer by choosing responses that fit their desires and the majority will carry the day. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com? -------- Original message -------- From: Julie Hedlund Date: 06/04/2013 18:32 (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NOTE re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Next SCI Meeting All, A note about the poll. ?Some have selected both options as "yes". ?Ideally, we need to make a decision between them because we won't have both meetings. ?Thus, it would be helpful if there is a preference indicated (perhaps if one is "yes" and one is "if-need-be, ?or "no" for example). ?If both options are selected equally (both as "yes") then we may have to go to a poll that allows only one option to be picked. Thanks for your help and sorry if I constructed the poll in a way that is confusing. Julie From: Julie Hedlund Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 4:27 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Next SCI Meeting Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's SCI call, we need to decide when to schedule the July SCI meeting. ?There are two options: 1. ?The regularly scheduled monthly time (based on the previous Doodle poll): 02 July 2013 at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT 2. ?In Durban on Sunday, 14 July 2013, at a time TBD. ?Note that regardless of the time chosen there will be conflicts with existing meetings. Please take the Doodle poll to help us decide at:?http://www.doodle.com/d9swee8iisuzggh4 DEADLINE: ?The poll will close on Friday, 07 June 2013 COB?1800 UTC/1400 EDT/1100 PDT (essentially close of business UTC). Thank you for your assistance and please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jun 5 13:16:08 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 06:16:08 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BEA393@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, I supported that group and I think they were aware of the scope of the charter vis-a-vis the projects, although I did not present the list that Marika has provided to them. Avri was in that drafting team, so perhaps she might wish to comment. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:59 PM To: Marika Konings , Ron Andruff , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Thanks Marika, very helpful. I assume the group that worked on Charter revision did so with reference to these planned projects? 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 theoriginal message. From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:47 PM To: Ron Andruff; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. 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:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jun 5 13:56:07 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 06:56:07 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for July Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for the July meeting for your review. Please let us know if you have any changes. The July meeting will be scheduled when the doodle is closed. 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Jun 5 21:44:53 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:44:53 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual In-Reply-To: References: <016b01ce616c$904a8c50$b0dfa4f0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <008601ce6235$ecb49750$c61dc5f0$@rnapartners.com> Thank you Marika and Julie for these important clarifications. Indeed, this is something that needs serious consideration by all Committee members prior to our next meeting. Thanks also to Mikey for flagging this on our last call, otherwise needed consideration may have slipped by us. I encourage all Committee members to bring their thoughts to the list. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 18:47 To: Ron Andruff; 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff < randruff at rnapartners.com> Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" < AAikman at lrlaw.com>, 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] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. 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: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Jun 5 21:53:49 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 21:53:49 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual In-Reply-To: <008601ce6235$ecb49750$c61dc5f0$@rnapartners.com> References: <016b01ce616c$904a8c50$b0dfa4f0$@rnapartners.com> <008601ce6235$ecb49750$c61dc5f0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BEFDF5@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> One thought I have is that the work project list must be compared directly to the revised draft Charter. [cid:789255321 at 05062013-00E9]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: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:45 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Thank you Marika and Julie for these important clarifications. Indeed, this is something that needs serious consideration by all Committee members prior to our next meeting. Thanks also to Mikey for flagging this on our last call, otherwise needed consideration may have slipped by us. I encourage all Committee members to bring their thoughts to the list. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 18:47 To: Ron Andruff; 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff > Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne [image001.gif at 01CE614B]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 Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 5 21:43:05 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:43:05 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <05F6822A-454B-4B7B-B8CC-168BDB300A81@haven2.com> References: <05F6822A-454B-4B7B-B8CC-168BDB300A81@haven2.com> Message-ID: <0E680B3A099F4C71AF028E11980C1AB7@WUKPC> I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion hi all, i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid. mikey On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" wrote: > > Ron and Committee Members: > > Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: > > (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced > > And/or > > (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? > > The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably > have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will > be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) > > Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 > calendar months. > > Thoughts? > > J. > > > > > > > On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" wrote: > >> >> Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this >> would >> need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst >> clarify that for us? >> >> Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that >> will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how >> many >> times a motion can be resubmitted. >> >> How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> www.rnapartners.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a >> Motion >> Importance: High >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 >> conditions, >> otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. >> >> Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a >> maximum >> count. >> >> I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something >> to >> be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion >> would ever make the consent agenda. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: >> >>> Dear SCI members, >>> >>> As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on >> re-submission of a motion. 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). >>> >>> Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda >>> at >> our next meeting. >>> >>> 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: , Anne >>> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM >>> To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel >> , "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 >>> >>> 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] On Behalf Of James M. >> Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: >> 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. >> >> > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) From angie at webgroup.com Wed Jun 5 22:43:44 2013 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:43:44 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <0E680B3A099F4C71AF028E11980C1AB7@WUKPC> References: <05F6822A-454B-4B7B-B8CC-168BDB300A81@haven2.com> <0E680B3A099F4C71AF028E11980C1AB7@WUKPC> Message-ID: Hi All, I agree. Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 *RE*introductions of a failed motion, meaning that all motions get a total of 3 opportunities to be considered, with all three occurring within a 12-month period. Angie Angie Graves WEB Group, Inc. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben wrote: > > I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM > To: James M. Bladel > Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.**org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a > Motion > > hi all, > > i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and > like James' initial bid. > > mikey > > > On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" wrote: > > >> Ron and Committee Members: >> >> Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: >> >> (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced >> >> And/or >> >> (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? >> >> The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably >> have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will >> be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) >> >> Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 >> calendar months. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> J. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" wrote: >> >> >>> Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this >>> would >>> need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst >>> clarify that for us? >>> >>> Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that >>> will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how >>> many >>> times a motion can be resubmitted. >>> >>> How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> RNA Partners >>> www.rnapartners.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@**icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-**impl-sc at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.**org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a >>> Motion >>> Importance: High >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 >>> conditions, >>> otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. >>> >>> Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a >>> maximum >>> count. >>> >>> I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something >>> to >>> be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion >>> would ever make the consent agenda. >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: >>> >>> Dear SCI members, >>>> >>>> As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on >>>> >>> re-submission of a motion. 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). >>> >>>> >>>> Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda >>>> at >>>> >>> our next meeting. >>> >>>> >>>> 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: , Anne >>>> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM >>>> To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel >>>> >>> , "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 >>> >>>> >>>> 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@**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?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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > 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: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Jun 5 23:41:14 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:41:14 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <0E680B3A099F4C71AF028E11980C1AB7@WUKPC> References: <05F6822A-454B-4B7B-B8CC-168BDB300A81@haven2.com> <0E680B3A099F4C71AF028E11980C1AB7@WUKPC> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BF01AA@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> My understanding is that IPC will not agree to a second from each house, but I can take it back to them if you think this represents a material change from the previous criterion #3 in Item 2. 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. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:43 PM To: Mike O'Connor; James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion hi all, i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid. mikey On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" wrote: > > Ron and Committee Members: > > Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: > > (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced > > And/or > > (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? > > The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds > probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group > reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) > > Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 > calendar months. > > Thoughts? > > J. > > > > > > > On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" wrote: > >> >> Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this >> would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in >> our midst clarify that for us? >> >> Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one >> that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit >> on how many times a motion can be resubmitted. >> >> How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> www.rnapartners.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri >> Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of >> a Motion >> Importance: High >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 >> conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every >> agenda. >> >> Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a >> maximum count. >> >> I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for >> something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a >> resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: >> >>> Dear SCI members, >>> >>> As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the >>> list on >> re-submission of a motion. 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). >>> >>> Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the >>> agenda at >> our next meeting. >>> >>> 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: , Anne >>> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM >>> To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel >> , "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 >>> >>> 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] On Behalf Of James M. >> Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: >> 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. >> >> > > 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 From marika.konings at icann.org Thu Jun 6 00:27:16 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:27:16 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been considered, but the following questions come to my mind: * 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? If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore. Best regards, Marika From: Angie Graves Date: Thursday 6 June 2013 00:43 To: WUKnoben Cc: Mike O'Connor , "James M. Bladel" , Ron Andruff , Avri Doria , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Hi All, I agree. Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 REintroductions of a failed motion, meaning that all motions get a total of 3 opportunities to be considered, with all three occurring within a 12-month period. Angie Angie Graves WEB Group, Inc. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben wrote: > > I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM > To: James M. Bladel > Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion > > hi all, > > i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like > James' initial bid. > > mikey > > > On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" wrote: > >> >> Ron and Committee Members: >> >> Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: >> >> (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced >> >> And/or >> >> (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? >> >> The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably >> have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will >> be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) >> >> Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 >> calendar months. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> J. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" wrote: >> >>> >>> Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this >>> would >>> need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst >>> clarify that for us? >>> >>> Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that >>> will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how >>> many >>> times a motion can be resubmitted. >>> >>> How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> RNA Partners >>> www.rnapartners.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a >>> Motion >>> Importance: High >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 >>> conditions, >>> otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. >>> >>> Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum >>> count. >>> >>> I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to >>> be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion >>> would ever make the consent agenda. >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: >>> >>>> Dear SCI members, >>>> >>>> As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on >>> re-submission of a motion. 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). >>>> >>>> Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda >>>> at >>> our next meeting. >>>> >>>> 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: , Anne >>>> Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM >>>> To: Ron Andruff , James Bladel >>> , "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 >>>> >>>> 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 >>> ] On Behalf Of James M. >>> Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Jun 6 14:38:52 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:38:52 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006b01ce62c3$917e2070$b47a6150$@rnapartners.com> Thanks for bringing these points to the discussion, Marika. Much appreciated. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 20:27 To: Angie Graves; WUKnoben Cc: Mike O'Connor; James M. Bladel; Ron Andruff; Avri Doria; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been considered, but the following questions come to my mind: * 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? If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore. Best regards, Marika From: Angie Graves > Date: Thursday 6 June 2013 00:43 To: WUKnoben > Cc: Mike O'Connor >, "James M. Bladel" >, Ron Andruff >, Avri Doria >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Hi All, I agree. Just as a point of clarification, I read "2 total" as 2 REintroductions of a failed motion, meaning that all motions get a total of 3 opportunities to be considered, with all three occurring within a 12-month period. Angie Angie Graves WEB Group, Inc. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, WUKnoben > wrote: I agree. Let's start with this plus a second from each house. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:30 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion hi all, i'll join the parade in favor of "not too many bites at the apple", and like James' initial bid. mikey On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "James M. Bladel" > wrote: Ron and Committee Members: Off the cuff, I think there are two approaches to Ron's second question: (1) How many times in a given period can a motion be reintroduced And/or (2) How much time must elapse before a failed motion can be reintroduced? The legal, government, commercial, non-profit and academic worlds probably have a jillion examples for each. So any decision this group reaches will be, by some measure, arbitrary. :) Therefore, I will start the bidding at: (1) twice, total and (2) 12 calendar months. Thoughts? J. On 6/4/13 16:18, "Ron Andruff" wrote: Agree with Avri re 1-2; but would like a clarification as to why this would need to be on the 'consent' agenda. Can one of the lawyers in our midst clarify that for us? Regarding what James noted as avoiding a 'zombie motion' (as in one that will never die) I agree that it would make sense to have a limit on how many times a motion can be resubmitted. How many times does the Committee think would be appropriate? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Importance: High Hi, I support 1-3. As I understand it one would need to meet all 3 conditions, otherwise there would be no stopping it being on every agenda. Also I thought some wanted to add a rate throttling mechanism or a maximum count. I agree 4 is superfluous since any council member can ask for something to be taken off the consent agenda, not that i expect a resubmitted motion would ever make the consent agenda. avri On 4 Jun 2013, at 16:31, Julie Hedlund wrote: Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. 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). Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting. 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: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff >, James Bladel >, "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 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 ] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: 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. 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: From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 6 15:20:45 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:20:45 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6AF62AF4-4E6D-42AF-8B90-1DDAC6DF2DCF@acm.org> On 5 Jun 2013, at 20:27, Marika Konings wrote: > Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been considered, but the following questions come to my mind: > ? 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? Is an amended motion the same motion. I think it needs to be the very same motion or derivatives based on amendments done in meetings. A re-crafted motion with new information that was not added as amendment, seems to me to be a new motion, no mater how similar. Of course, that opens up the possibility that if people were not being collegial, purely hypothetically, a similar motion could be submitted each month ad infinitum. IS there ay provision for rejection of a motion without voting it down. > ? 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? As I remember this courtesy is also extend in some form to ACs who have requested a issues report. Do I remember correctly (I know, I could check). Perhaps this is the rule that should just be carried forward to all motions. > ? 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? I agree Until some of the recent statements, I have thought of this a much more of a proximity problem. I.e. in the same meeting, at the next meeting or 2 at the latest.. > If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore. I do not think we even got close to any of these issues. thanks as for a repeat clause. How about once and in extraordinary circumstances (at the leadership's, C+VC, discretion) twice. avri From mike at haven2.com Thu Jun 6 16:11:40 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:11:40 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now. here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter? possible answers -- we're trying to: -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. thanks, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jun 6 17:08:47 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:08:47 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Mikey, I think the Charter revisions fall into the category of "do something else, to accomplish the following goals." The goal is to update the charter because it does not have a procedure for selection of the chair and vice-chair, and make other updates. Perhaps a bit of background will be helpful. Last fall Wolf-Ulrich announced that he would step down as Chair to allow someone new to take his place, since he had been Chair since the establishment of the SCI in April 2011. This meant that the SCI had to hold an election for Chair and it found that there were no procedures for such an election in the SCI Charter. After agreeing to a procedure, an election was held in December 2012 that resulted in Ron being elected as Chair and Avri taking the post of Vice-Chair. (This is reflected in meeting agendas for 2012 on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/1.+Meetings, and in the meeting notes/actions in the email archive.) In December (20 December meeting) the SCI, having realized the need to update the Charter to include the election process and terms for the Chair and Vice Chair, asked staff to include the changes in a revised Charter. The SCI discussed the revised charter on the list and in the meetings on 09 January, 23 January, and 06 February. The changes were agreed to by the SCI, but it noted that the Charter may require other updates so it asked for volunteers for a Charter Revision Drafting Team at the meeting on 20 February. The following SCI members volunteered for the Drafting Team: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott Evans, and Wolf-Urich Knoben. J.Scott agreed to lead the group. They had a couple of meetings and drafted an updated version of the Charter that was presented to the SCI prior to the Beijing meeting. That version is the one currently circulating, with additional changes concerning consensus discussed in the call on 22 May and the minor grammatical changes discussed on the call on 04 June. Other SCI members may wish to provide their thoughts about the goal of the Charter update, particularly those who were on the Drafting Team. Best regards, Julie On 6/6/13 12:11 PM, "Mike O'Connor" wrote: >hi all, > >newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just >because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right >now. > >here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the >Charter? > >possible answers -- we're trying to: > >-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >accomplish the following goals > >-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >accomplish the following goals > >-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals > >-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals > >i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather >than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. > >thanks, > >mikey > > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Jun 6 17:59:41 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 17:59:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <6AF62AF4-4E6D-42AF-8B90-1DDAC6DF2DCF@acm.org> References: <6AF62AF4-4E6D-42AF-8B90-1DDAC6DF2DCF@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BF12B6@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Marika makes some very good points about potential conflicts related to other motion provisions. We may need to go back to the subgroup to study this. The subgroup was Mary, Thomas, me and anyone else? 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. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:21 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion On 5 Jun 2013, at 20:27, Marika Konings wrote: > Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been considered, but the following questions come to my mind: > ? 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? Is an amended motion the same motion. I think it needs to be the very same motion or derivatives based on amendments done in meetings. A re-crafted motion with new information that was not added as amendment, seems to me to be a new motion, no mater how similar. Of course, that opens up the possibility that if people were not being collegial, purely hypothetically, a similar motion could be submitted each month ad infinitum. IS there ay provision for rejection of a motion without voting it down. > ? 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? As I remember this courtesy is also extend in some form to ACs who have requested a issues report. Do I remember correctly (I know, I could check). Perhaps this is the rule that should just be carried forward to all motions. > ? 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? I agree Until some of the recent statements, I have thought of this a much more of a proximity problem. I.e. in the same meeting, at the next meeting or 2 at the latest.. > If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore. I do not think we even got close to any of these issues. thanks as for a repeat clause. How about once and in extraordinary circumstances (at the leadership's, C+VC, discretion) twice. avri ---------------------- 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 From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jun 6 18:05:25 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:05:25 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BF12B6@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, This is the list of members in the sub-group: Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Thomas Rickert and Mary Wong. Thanks, Julie On 6/6/13 1:59 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >Marika makes some very good points about potential conflicts related to >other motion provisions. We may need to go back to the subgroup to study >this. The subgroup was Mary, Thomas, me and anyone else? 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. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:21 AM >To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a >Motion > > > >On 5 Jun 2013, at 20:27, Marika Konings wrote: > >> Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been >>considered, but the following questions come to my mind: >> ? 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? > >Is an amended motion the same motion. I think it needs to be the very >same motion or derivatives based on amendments done in meetings. > >A re-crafted motion with new information that was not added as amendment, >seems to me to be a new motion, no mater how similar. > >Of course, that opens up the possibility that if people were not being >collegial, purely hypothetically, a similar motion could be submitted >each month ad infinitum. IS there ay provision for rejection of a motion >without voting it down. > >> ? 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? > >As I remember this courtesy is also extend in some form to ACs who have >requested a issues report. Do I remember correctly (I know, I could >check). > >Perhaps this is the rule that should just be carried forward to all >motions. > >> ? 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? > >I agree Until some of the recent statements, I have thought of this a >much more of a proximity problem. I.e. in the same meeting, at the next >meeting or 2 at the latest.. > >> If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore. > >I do not think we even got close to any of these issues. >thanks > >as for a repeat clause. How about once and in extraordinary >circumstances (at the leadership's, C+VC, discretion) twice. > >avri > > > > > >---------------------- >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 > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Jun 6 18:07:41 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:07:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BF12B6@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BF1581@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Good Group! 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. -----Original Message----- From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:05 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion Anne, This is the list of members in the sub-group: Anne Aikman-Scalese, Avri Doria, Thomas Rickert and Mary Wong. Thanks, Julie On 6/6/13 1:59 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >Marika makes some very good points about potential conflicts related to >other motion provisions. We may need to go back to the subgroup to >study this. The subgroup was Mary, Thomas, me and anyone else? 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. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:21 AM >To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a >Motion > > > >On 5 Jun 2013, at 20:27, Marika Konings wrote: > >> Apologies if I'm raising questions / issues that have already been >>considered, but the following questions come to my mind: >> ? 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? > >Is an amended motion the same motion. I think it needs to be the very >same motion or derivatives based on amendments done in meetings. > >A re-crafted motion with new information that was not added as >amendment, seems to me to be a new motion, no mater how similar. > >Of course, that opens up the possibility that if people were not being >collegial, purely hypothetically, a similar motion could be submitted >each month ad infinitum. IS there ay provision for rejection of a >motion without voting it down. > >> ? 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? > >As I remember this courtesy is also extend in some form to ACs who have >requested a issues report. Do I remember correctly (I know, I could >check). > >Perhaps this is the rule that should just be carried forward to all >motions. > >> ? 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? > >I agree Until some of the recent statements, I have thought of this a >much more of a proximity problem. I.e. in the same meeting, at the >next meeting or 2 at the latest.. > >> If these questions were already considered, please feel free to ignore. > >I do not think we even got close to any of these issues. >thanks > >as for a repeat clause. How about once and in extraordinary >circumstances (at the leadership's, C+VC, discretion) twice. > >avri > > > > > >---------------------- >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 > From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 6 19:53:25 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:53:25 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up. I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now avri On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: > hi all, > > newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now. > > here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter? > > possible answers -- we're trying to: > > -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals > > -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals > > -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals > > -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals > > i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. > > thanks, > > mikey > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jun 6 22:44:51 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:44:51 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER RESPONSE REQUESTED: Doodle Poll for Next SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, This is a reminder that as discussed on this week's SCI call, we need to decide when to schedule the July SCI meeting. There are two options: 1. The regularly scheduled monthly time (based on the previous Doodle poll): 02 July 2013 at 1900 UTC/1500 EDT/1200 PDT 2. In Durban on Sunday, 14 July 2013, at a time TBD. Note that regardless of the time chosen there will be conflicts with existing meetings. If you have not already done so, please take the Doodle poll to help us decide at: http://www.doodle.com/d9swee8iisuzggh4. Even if you can attend a meeting at both times, please indicate your preference for one meeting over the other. DEADLINE: The poll will close TOMORROW, Friday, 07 June 2013 COB 1800 UTC/1400 EDT/1100 PDT (essentially close of business UTC). Thank you for your assistance and please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Fri Jun 7 17:12:29 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:12:29 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01e101ce63a2$323cf2f0$96b6d8d0$@rnapartners.com> Mikey, I think Avri summed up my views, and those of most SCI members as well. Julie's comments add a little more context to the matter. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 15:53 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? Hi, To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up. I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now avri On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: > hi all, > > newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now. > > here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter? > > possible answers -- we're trying to: > > -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals > > -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals > > -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals > > -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals > > i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. > > thanks, > > mikey > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > From AAikman at lrlaw.com Fri Jun 7 17:23:28 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:23:28 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? In-Reply-To: <01e101ce63a2$323cf2f0$96b6d8d0$@rnapartners.com> References: <01e101ce63a2$323cf2f0$96b6d8d0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BF6265@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Unfortunately I have no views since J. Scott was spearheading for IPC and I was not involved. So I am also at "Square 1" on this effort, but certainly recognize the need to at least update the Charter to do the work that everyone seems to be expecting at this point. 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. -----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: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:12 AM To: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? Mikey, I think Avri summed up my views, and those of most SCI members as well. Julie's comments add a little more context to the matter. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 15:53 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? Hi, To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up. I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now avri On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: > hi all, > > newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just > because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now. > > here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in > the Charter? > > possible answers -- we're trying to: > > -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals > > -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals > > -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals > > -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals > > i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather > than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. > > thanks, > > mikey > > > > 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 From mike at haven2.com Fri Jun 7 20:16:43 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:16:43 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FBC1CCB-3492-4762-B15A-DA1B7EAE92EF@haven2.com> thanks Avri and Julie, your posts are really helpful. what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind. one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. mikey On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. > > Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up. > > I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. > > I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. > > But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now > > avri > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now. >> >> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter? >> >> possible answers -- we're trying to: >> >> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals >> >> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals >> >> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >> >> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >> >> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >> >> thanks, >> >> mikey >> >> >> >> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Jun 7 20:38:02 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:38:02 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Doodle Poll Closed/Next SCI Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Thank you to all who responded to the Doodle Poll. Based on your responses the preferred day for our next meeting is at our recurring monthly date of 02 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET). There will not be a meeting in Durban. The GNSO Secretariat staff will send a notice of the meeting with the teleconference information. The meeting also is listed on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/02+July+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Jun 7 20:47:40 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:47:40 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: <0FBC1CCB-3492-4762-B15A-DA1B7EAE92EF@haven2.com> Message-ID: Hi Mickey, I'll defer to the SCI members concerning a "sunset" clause, but I'll point out that as Avri noted (and I think Marika also pointed out) the SCI is to undertake periodic process reviews on those processes that were initiated in the GNSO improvements process. The charter says, "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)." Those reviews have not occurred nor have they been defined. It may be that language needs to be included that sets a specific timeframe for these process reviews. Best regards, Julie On 6/7/13 4:16 PM, "Mike O'Connor" wrote: >thanks Avri and Julie, > >your posts are really helpful. > >what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original >intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of >the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the >GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i >think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through >the draft with this in mind. > >one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" >language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be >that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is >because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. > >mikey > > >On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms >>that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >> >> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might >>have wanted to go beyond clean-up. >> >> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, >>but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >> >> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do >>not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the >>periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the >>rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered >>working groups. >> >> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just >>>because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list >>>right now. >>> >>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in >>>the Charter? >>> >>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>> >>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >>>accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >>>accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather >>>than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mike at haven2.com Fri Jun 7 20:54:28 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:54:28 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi Julie, yep -- that's what i'm thinking too. otherwise i can imagine this "project close out" committee going on forever. going on forever is fine if we're transforming into a standing rules committee, but not consistent with the direction i'm picking up from the posts in this thread. m On Jun 7, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Hi Mickey, > > I'll defer to the SCI members concerning a "sunset" clause, but I'll point > out that as Avri noted (and I think Marika also pointed out) the SCI is to > undertake periodic process reviews on those processes that were initiated > in the GNSO improvements process. The charter says, "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)." Those reviews have not occurred nor > have they been defined. It may be that language needs to be included that > sets a specific timeframe for these process reviews. > > Best regards, > Julie > > On 6/7/13 4:16 PM, "Mike O'Connor" wrote: > >> thanks Avri and Julie, >> >> your posts are really helpful. >> >> what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original >> intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of >> the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the >> GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i >> think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through >> the draft with this in mind. >> >> one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" >> language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be >> that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is >> because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms >>> that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >>> >>> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might >>> have wanted to go beyond clean-up. >>> >>> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, >>> but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >>> >>> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do >>> not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the >>> periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the >>> rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered >>> working groups. >>> >>> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just >>>> because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list >>>> right now. >>>> >>>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in >>>> the Charter? >>>> >>>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>>> >>>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >>>> accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >>>> accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather >>>> than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> mikey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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.) >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ray at goto.jobs Fri Jun 7 21:03:51 2013 From: ray at goto.jobs (Ray Fassett) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:03:51 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: <0FBC1CCB-3492-4762-B15A-DA1B7EAE92EF@haven2.com> References: <0FBC1CCB-3492-4762-B15A-DA1B7EAE92EF@haven2.com> Message-ID: <044401ce63c2$842c8b00$8c85a100$@goto.jobs> It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed basis through the course of time. Ray -----Original Message----- 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, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? thanks Avri and Julie, your posts are really helpful. what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind. one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. mikey On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. > > Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up. > > I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. > > I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. > > But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now > > avri > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now. >> >> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter? >> >> possible answers -- we're trying to: >> >> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals >> >> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals >> >> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >> >> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >> >> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >> >> thanks, >> >> mikey >> >> >> >> 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.) From mike at haven2.com Fri Jun 7 21:30:00 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:30:00 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: <044401ce63c2$842c8b00$8c85a100$@goto.jobs> References: <0FBC1CCB-3492-4762-B15A-DA1B7EAE92EF@haven2.com> <044401ce63c2$842c8b00$8c85a100$@goto.jobs> Message-ID: <8236AE62-D666-4D9B-A76B-11098498F322@haven2.com> ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" wrote: > It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a > while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there > was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally > never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the > DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to > address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, > operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting > point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the > project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to > repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating > operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the > effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. > Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a > mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed > basis through the course of time. > > Ray > > -----Original Message----- > 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, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? > > thanks Avri and Julie, > > your posts are really helpful. > > what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original > intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of > the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO > or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think > some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft > with this in mind. > > one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" > language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that > the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because > the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. > > mikey > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that > need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >> >> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have > wanted to go beyond clean-up. >> >> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but > it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >> >> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not > agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic > process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI > work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. >> >> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just > because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right > now. >>> >>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the > Charter? >>> >>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>> >>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to > accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to > accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather > than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.) > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Fri Jun 7 22:54:21 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 22:54:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? In-Reply-To: <8236AE62-D666-4D9B-A76B-11098498F322@haven2.com> References: <0FBC1CCB-3492-4762-B15A-DA1B7EAE92EF@haven2.com> <044401ce63c2$842c8b00$8c85a100$@goto.jobs> <8236AE62-D666-4D9B-A76B-11098498F322@haven2.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BFD5B2@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> My own view is that if GNSO did not see SCI as a resource for new issues, they never would have asked us to address: 1. suspension of a PDP (already done at GNSO request) or 2. resubmission of a motion (working on this now at GNSO request) So in general my feeling is we are responding to current requests forwarded on motion from the GNSO and that the Charter should likely reflect the work they expect from us (while pointing out this is different from the original Charter). This is why I thought we should be careful to look at the work list before us that Julie recently provided. It is not clear to me that GNSO intends SCI to take requests directly from GNSO chartered Working Groups on a ongoing basis, but based on their current practice, it appears GNSO wants to be able to make requests of SCI from time to time. I guess my assumption about this has been that the word "Standing" in the description of the Committee makes them think of SCI as an available resource to the Council. 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. -----Original Message----- 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, June 07, 2013 2:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" wrote: > It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for > quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened > because there was not a mechanism to review and update these > procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO > formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO > improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by > creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We > would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but > obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the > project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history > not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and > updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. > Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a > mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as > needed basis through the course of time. > > Ray > > -----Original Message----- > 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, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? > > thanks Avri and Julie, > > your posts are really helpful. > > what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original > intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work > of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for > the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, > and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn > through the draft with this in mind. > > one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" > language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be > that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is > because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. > > mikey > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms >> that > need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >> >> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might >> have > wanted to go beyond clean-up. >> >> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, >> but > it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >> >> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I >> do not > agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic > process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of > SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. >> >> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just > because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list > right now. >>> >>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change >>> in the > Charter? >>> >>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>> >>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to > accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order >>> to > accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer >>> rather > than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.) > > 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 From ray at goto.jobs Fri Jun 7 22:40:44 2013 From: ray at goto.jobs (Ray Fassett) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:40:44 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? In-Reply-To: <8236AE62-D666-4D9B-A76B-11098498F322@haven2.com> References: <0FBC1CCB-3492-4762-B15A-DA1B7EAE92EF@haven2.com> <044401ce63c2$842c8b00$8c85a100$@goto.jobs> <8236AE62-D666-4D9B-A76B-11098498F322@haven2.com> Message-ID: <049501ce63d0$0c203db0$2460b910$@goto.jobs> Well remember the SCI can only make recommendations to the Council with regards to changes to its operating procedures. Or is this no longer true? To my knowledge, the Council has to approve any changes to its own operating procedures no different than when they had to formally approve/adopt the new operating procedures they are working under now. Does this help? Ray -----Original Message----- 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, June 07, 2013 5:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" wrote: > It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a > while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there > was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally > never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the > DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to > address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, > operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting > point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the > project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to > repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating > operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the > effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. > Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a > mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed > basis through the course of time. > > Ray > > -----Original Message----- > 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, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? > > thanks Avri and Julie, > > your posts are really helpful. > > what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original > intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of > the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO > or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think > some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft > with this in mind. > > one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" > language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that > the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because > the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. > > mikey > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that > need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >> >> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have > wanted to go beyond clean-up. >> >> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but > it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >> >> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not > agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic > process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI > work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. >> >> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just > because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right > now. >>> >>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the > Charter? >>> >>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>> >>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to > accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to > accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather > than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.) > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) From marika.konings at icann.org Fri Jun 7 23:12:31 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:12:31 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BFD5B2@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: To add my two cents to this, the SCI was indeed created as a 'Standing Committee' to address any issues resulting from the implementation of the recommendations related to the GNSO review as well as to be responsible for a periodic review of those adopted recommendations. The focus to date has mainly been on issues that occurred as a result of the implementation revised Operating Procedures, including the WG Guidelines and PDP Manual, as most felt that the discussions on periodic reviews should start once most of these recommendations would have been operation for at least a certain amount of time in order to obtain useful data / information to identify the success and/or shortcomings. As for any WG / Committee / DT, any recommendations need to be submitted to the GNSO Council for approval. In the case of changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, these are subject to a public comment period of at least 21 days prior to consideration by the GNSO Council. With best regards, Marika On 07/06/13 15:54, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" wrote: > >My own view is that if GNSO did not see SCI as a resource for new issues, >they never would have asked us to address: > >1. suspension of a PDP (already done at GNSO request) or >2. resubmission of a motion (working on this now at GNSO request) > >So in general my feeling is we are responding to current requests >forwarded on motion from the GNSO and that the Charter should likely >reflect the work they expect from us (while pointing out this is >different from the original Charter). This is why I thought we should be >careful to look at the work list before us that Julie recently provided. > >It is not clear to me that GNSO intends SCI to take requests directly >from GNSO chartered Working Groups on a ongoing basis, but based on their >current practice, it appears GNSO wants to be able to make requests of >SCI from time to time. I guess my assumption about this has been that >the word "Standing" in the description of the Committee makes them think >of SCI as an available resource to the Council. > >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. > >-----Original Message----- >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, June 07, 2013 2:30 PM >To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? > >ah! a puzzle! i love those. > >i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. > but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the >rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a >subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the >GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so >doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? > >in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that >needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions >of the charter. > >one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, >deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody >could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the >process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to >develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the >Council after we're done. > >another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing >rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the >Council to evaluate our idea. > >is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another >journey into dreamland? > >mikey > > >On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" wrote: > >> It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for >> quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened >> because there was not a mechanism to review and update these >> procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO >> formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO >> improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by >> creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We >> would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but >> obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the >> project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history >> not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and >> updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, >>producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living >>document. >> Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a >> mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as >> needed basis through the course of time. >> >> Ray >> >> -----Original Message----- >> 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, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our >>goal? >> >> thanks Avri and Julie, >> >> your posts are really helpful. >> >> what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original >> intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work >> of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for >> the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, >> and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn >> through the draft with this in mind. >> >> one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" >> language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be >> that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is >> because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms >>> that >> need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >>> >>> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might >>> have >> wanted to go beyond clean-up. >>> >>> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, >>> but >> it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >>> >>> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I >>> do not >> agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic >> process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of >> SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working >>groups. >>> >>> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just >> because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list >> right now. >>>> >>>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change >>>> in the >> Charter? >>>> >>>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>>> >>>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >> accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order >>>> to >> accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer >>>> rather >> than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> mikey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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.) >> >> > > >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 > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Fri Jun 7 23:14:30 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 23:14:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? In-Reply-To: <049501ce63d0$0c203db0$2460b910$@goto.jobs> References: <0FBC1CCB-3492-4762-B15A-DA1B7EAE92EF@haven2.com> <044401ce63c2$842c8b00$8c85a100$@goto.jobs> <8236AE62-D666-4D9B-A76B-11098498F322@haven2.com> <049501ce63d0$0c203db0$2460b910$@goto.jobs> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BFD6BB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> That makes sense. What does the Charter revision say about this? I think it says Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. Are the WG Guidelines part of the Operating Procedures? I'm pretty sure the PDP Manual is a part of the Operating Procedures. 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. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ray Fassett Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 3:41 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? Well remember the SCI can only make recommendations to the Council with regards to changes to its operating procedures. Or is this no longer true? To my knowledge, the Council has to approve any changes to its own operating procedures no different than when they had to formally approve/adopt the new operating procedures they are working under now. Does this help? Ray -----Original Message----- 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, June 07, 2013 5:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" wrote: > It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for > quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened > because there was not a mechanism to review and update these > procedures, so they literally > never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced > the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite > urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the > GNSO to, well, > operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting > point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was > the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For > history not to > repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating > operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing > the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. > Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a > mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed > basis through the course of time. > > Ray > > -----Original Message----- > 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, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? > > thanks Avri and Julie, > > your posts are really helpful. > > what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original > intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work > of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for > the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, > and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn > through the draft with this in mind. > > one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" > language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that > the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is > because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. > > mikey > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that > need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >> >> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might >> have > wanted to go beyond clean-up. >> >> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, >> but > it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >> >> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I >> do not > agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic > process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of > SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. >> >> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just > because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list > right now. >>> >>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change >>> in the > Charter? >>> >>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>> >>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to > accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order >>> to > accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer >>> rather > than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.) > > 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 From mike at haven2.com Sat Jun 8 00:10:52 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:10:52 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: uh oh. this thread is splitting into separate ones. so i'll just whack the whole thing and start with a blank slate. this is really helpful discussion. i like Ray's historical perspective, Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there and Marika's recap of the task at hand. part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP" topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a stretch from a scope standpoint. i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea to push back on that one a bit. what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that remit and how things get submitted to us for review. we also need make sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident. mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Sun Jun 9 20:46:51 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:46:51 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mickey, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben brought from the Council to the SCI on 21 December 2012 (via email to the SCI list) the request to look at the issue of resubmitting a motion as a result of discussions during the Council meeting on 20 December. Best regards, Julie On 6/7/13 8:10 PM, "Mike O'Connor" wrote: >uh oh. this thread is splitting into separate ones. so i'll just whack >the whole thing and start with a blank slate. > >this is really helpful discussion. i like Ray's historical perspective, >Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there >and Marika's recap of the task at hand. > >part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because >while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP" >topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a >stretch from a scope standpoint. > >i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were >asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea >to push back on that one a bit. > >what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing >that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of >the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that >remit and how things get submitted to us for review. we also need make >sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident. > >mikey > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Jun 10 01:03:48 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:03:48 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? Message-ID: <8rqde3is1xiyftaucqcpnag1.1370826228109@email.android.com> Mikey, With all of the info that has been flowing to you on the list I trust that you now have a clearer understanding of the SCI. One thing is unclear to me however. You continue to refer ro the SCI as a rules committee, ?which it is nothing of the sort. It has been mandated to review policy matters are referred ro it by Council, ?or Council chartered Working Groups. I think of the SCI loosely as a sub-committee that brings its conclusions on issues that arise back to the Council, and in fact, to the Community, with a recommendation. The Council takes the recs under advisement and ultimately makes a determinarion. The SCI has looked at one issue that we were asked by Council Chair to review and recommended that no action be taken; rather a review in one year to see if the matter may have resolved itself. The reason we are revising the SCI charter is to bring it current to the role it fulfills for Council. ?The SCI has been meeting for three years and functioned well in its service to the Council and greater ICANN Community. Ours is not to determine the fate of the SCI; rather our efforts should be concentrated on updating the charter to reflect the work product the SCI generates. The GNSO Council will determine if there is merit to?continuing the work of the SCI or not. That's how ICANN's bottom up process works. No single part can self-determine without Community scrutiny. Your questions were helpful to bring the Committee's focus to the task at hand. Now we should shift our focus to revising the document we need to fulfill our work. To that end, I would like to ask Julie to send around the most recently edited charter again to be sure that we all have the base document. I ask for members to please submit your mark ups to the list for Julie to capture.? Thanks to you and the other Committee members for the robust discussion. It has certainly helped deeper conderation of what role the SCI plays in the ICANN solar system for all of us. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com? -------- Original message -------- From: Julie Hedlund Date: 06/09/2013 16:46 (GMT-05:00) To: Mike O'Connor Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? Mickey, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben brought from the Council to the SCI on 21 December 2012 (via email to the SCI list) the request to look at the issue of resubmitting a motion as a result of discussions during the Council meeting on 20 December. Best regards, Julie On 6/7/13 8:10 PM, "Mike O'Connor" wrote: >uh oh.? this thread is splitting into separate ones.?? so i'll just whack >the whole thing and start with a blank slate. > >this is really helpful discussion.? i like Ray's historical perspective, >Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there >and Marika's recap of the task at hand. > >part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because >while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP" >topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a >stretch from a scope standpoint. > >i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were >asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea >to push back on that one a bit. > >what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing >that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of >the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that >remit and how things get submitted to us for review.? we also need make >sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident. > >mikey > > >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: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Jun 10 11:39:25 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:39:25 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Per Ron's request to send this around again, attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from that meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that is scheduled for 02 July 2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Revisions - 130604.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26902 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 10 14:29:47 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:29:47 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? In-Reply-To: References: <8rqde3is1xiyftaucqcpnag1.1370826228109@email.android.com> Message-ID: <9765C8CE-DC9B-4D0C-9D39-579433C9DFF9@acm.org> further: just the GNSO Council/PDP/WGetc Processes and the rules that govern those processes. On 10 Jun 2013, at 10:27, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Policy? Certainly not substantive policy? > > I thought it was questions about the process, aka rules. > We have absolutely nothing to do with ICANN/GNSO Policy as far I know. Just the processes and the rules that govern those processes. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jun 2013, at 21:03, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> Mikey, >> >> With all of the info that has been flowing to you on the list I trust that you now have a clearer understanding of the SCI. One thing is unclear to me however. You continue to refer ro the SCI as a rules committee, which it is nothing of the sort. It has been mandated to review policy matters are referred ro it by Council, or Council chartered Working Groups. I think of the SCI loosely as a sub-committee that brings its conclusions on issues that arise back to the Council, and in fact, to the Community, with a recommendation. The Council takes the recs under advisement and ultimately makes a determinarion. The SCI has looked at one issue that we were asked by Council Chair to review and recommended that no action be taken; rather a review in one year to see if the matter may have resolved itself. >> >> The reason we are revising the SCI charter is to bring it current to the role it fulfills for Council. The SCI has been meeting for three years and functioned well in its service to the Council and greater ICANN Community. Ours is not to determine the fate of the SCI; rather our efforts should be concentrated on updating the charter to reflect the work product the SCI generates. The GNSO Council will determine if there is merit to continuing the work of the SCI or not. That's how ICANN's bottom up process works. No single part can self-determine without Community scrutiny. >> >> Your questions were helpful to bring the Committee's focus to the task at hand. Now we should shift our focus to revising the document we need to fulfill our work. >> >> To that end, I would like to ask Julie to send around the most recently edited charter again to be sure that we all have the base document. I ask for members to please submit your mark ups to the list for Julie to capture. >> >> Thanks to you and the other Committee members for the robust discussion. It has certainly helped deeper conderation of what role the SCI plays in the ICANN solar system for all of us. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> >> >> >> Ron Andruff >> www.lifedotsport.com >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Julie Hedlund >> Date: 06/09/2013 16:46 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Mike O'Connor >> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? >> >> >> Mickey, >> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben brought from the Council to the SCI on 21 December 2012 >> (via email to the SCI list) the request to look at the issue of >> resubmitting a motion as a result of discussions during the Council >> meeting on 20 December. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> On 6/7/13 8:10 PM, "Mike O'Connor" wrote: >> >>> uh oh. this thread is splitting into separate ones. so i'll just whack >>> the whole thing and start with a blank slate. >>> >>> this is really helpful discussion. i like Ray's historical perspective, >>> Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there >>> and Marika's recap of the task at hand. >>> >>> part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because >>> while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP" >>> topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a >>> stretch from a scope standpoint. >>> >>> i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were >>> asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea >>> to push back on that one a bit. >>> >>> what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing >>> that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of >>> the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that >>> remit and how things get submitted to us for review. we also need make >>> sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident. >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >>> > From mike at haven2.com Mon Jun 10 14:32:49 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:32:49 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E4AC690-BBCC-465C-8F30-44EFBF816F48@haven2.com> hi all, i've developed an alternate version of the draft that captures my understanding of the "narrow, time-limited" definition of the SCI. i'm putting it out here for discussion, partly to see if my understanding is correct and partly as an alternative for the group to consider. with the exception of one nit-pick in the "Working Method" section, all of my changes are in the "General" section. Much of what i've done involved deleting prior changes -- so you may find it helpful to have Julie's draft and this one open side by side as you review it. i decided to treat this as a "fork" in the drafts rather than trying to pile my changes on top of the ones that were already there -- it started to get VERY busy. if people would prefer, i'm happy to do a draft that makes the changes "on top" of the ones that Avri and J Scott had already made. thanks, mikey On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear SCI members, > > Per Ron's request to send this around again, attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from that meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. > > Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that is scheduled for 02 July 2013. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Revisions - narrow.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 10 18:31:30 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:31:30 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 In-Reply-To: <1E4AC690-BBCC-465C-8F30-44EFBF816F48@haven2.com> References: <1E4AC690-BBCC-465C-8F30-44EFBF816F48@haven2.com> Message-ID: Hi, I am fine with this. one questions > is responsible for the final review and assessment of why final? avri On 10 Jun 2013, at 10:32, Mike O'Connor wrote: > hi all, > > i've developed an alternate version of the draft that captures my understanding of the "narrow, time-limited" definition of the SCI. i'm putting it out here for discussion, partly to see if my understanding is correct and partly as an alternative for the group to consider. > > with the exception of one nit-pick in the "Working Method" section, all of my changes are in the "General" section. Much of what i've done involved deleting prior changes -- so you may find it helpful to have Julie's draft and this one open side by side as you review it. i decided to treat this as a "fork" in the drafts rather than trying to pile my changes on top of the ones that were already there -- it started to get VERY busy. if people would prefer, i'm happy to do a draft that makes the changes "on top" of the ones that Avri and J Scott had already made. > > thanks, > > mikey > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > >> Dear SCI members, >> >> Per Ron's request to send this around again, attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from that meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. >> >> Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that is scheduled for 02 July 2013. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > From mike at haven2.com Mon Jun 10 19:02:36 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:02:36 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <1E4AC690-BBCC-465C-8F30-44EFBF816F48@haven2.com> Message-ID: <6D17CD41-3498-4D62-88CD-8A70A904693D@haven2.com> ah. good one. i was thinking along the lines of "the last review by that chain of working groups that created and implemented the reforms." so a clearer wording might be something like "is responsible for the final review and assessment by the {what ever that group of teams is called in aggregate}" certainly don't want to imply final EVER, just final before transitioning to "normal" GNSO process. thanks, mikey On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > I am fine with this. > > one questions > >> is responsible for the final review and assessment of > > why final? > > > avri > > On 10 Jun 2013, at 10:32, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> i've developed an alternate version of the draft that captures my understanding of the "narrow, time-limited" definition of the SCI. i'm putting it out here for discussion, partly to see if my understanding is correct and partly as an alternative for the group to consider. >> >> with the exception of one nit-pick in the "Working Method" section, all of my changes are in the "General" section. Much of what i've done involved deleting prior changes -- so you may find it helpful to have Julie's draft and this one open side by side as you review it. i decided to treat this as a "fork" in the drafts rather than trying to pile my changes on top of the ones that were already there -- it started to get VERY busy. if people would prefer, i'm happy to do a draft that makes the changes "on top" of the ones that Avri and J Scott had already made. >> >> thanks, >> >> mikey >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote: >> >>> Dear SCI members, >>> >>> Per Ron's request to send this around again, attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from that meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. >>> >>> Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that is scheduled for 02 July 2013. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>> >> >> >> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ken.bour at verizon.net Mon Jun 10 20:43:31 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:43:31 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire Message-ID: <015c01ce661b$2bb64a00$8322de00$@verizon.net> SCI Team Members: Since our last teleconference, I have been working on the development of a WG Self-Assessment instrument. Rather than inundate the SCI email list with multiple drafts and iterations during the incubation period, I thought it would be more helpful to post my work products to the ICANN Community Wiki. I have now reached a point where I think the material is ready for your review. In particular, you will find the following pages under the GNSO tab (category) and Working Group Resources space. Below is the hierarchy including links: WG Self-Assessments: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag . Design Considerations: https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag . Learning Objectives: https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag . Questionnaire (Draft v1): https://community.icann.org/x/EC1-Ag If you want to follow my developmental logic path, I suggest starting at the top and proceeding in the sequence shown. If you want to skip to the actual draft questionnaire, it is contained in the bottom linked page. I included a few notes which you should bear in mind before perusing the actual questions. At this stage, I would like to receive your feedback before proceeding further to be sure that I am on a productive track. You will certainly notice that this instrument is no longer focused on the WG Guidelines documentation (the original survey scope); instead, on the effectiveness of the WG's operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. I included my rationale for that shift at the top of the Design Considerations page. Feel free to comment on the email list or add comments to the individual Wiki pages. I will attend to both sources over the next week or so as you have time to review and evaluate my recommended approach to the WG Self-Assessment. Regards, Ken Bour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Mon Jun 10 21:26:54 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:26:54 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <015c01ce661b$2bb64a00$8322de00$@verizon.net> References: <015c01ce661b$2bb64a00$8322de00$@verizon.net> Message-ID: <3F5DA06C-2D40-4097-B9DD-92A80087D44F@haven2.com> hi Ken, i really like the work you've done. i've sprinkled reactions inline, but overall this is a great start. thanks, mikey On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: > SCI Team Members: > > Since our last teleconference, I have been working on the development of a WG Self-Assessment instrument. Rather than inundate the SCI email list with multiple drafts and iterations during the incubation period, I thought it would be more helpful to post my work products to the ICANN Community Wiki. I have now reached a point where I think the material is ready for your review. > > In particular, you will find the following pages under the GNSO tab (category) and Working Group Resources space. Below is the hierarchy including links: > > WG Self-Assessments: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag really good introduction. on second reading i realized that one thing that might need expanding in the "lower-level" chunks of work is the LOs and questions that try to tease out the effectiveness of the formally-documented processes (the newly-changed PDP, developed by all the WGs that came before us). not a lot more, but just a bit. i think one of the reactions i had to the first questionnaire was that it was too focused on the formal-process stuff. so there's some balancing to be found. i could certainly live with the balance you've struck in this first pass -- but if there was a graceful way to add just a little more review of the PDP framework, i'd like that too. not too much though. we're going for "just right." :-) > ? Design Considerations: https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag individual vs collective -- i like where you're going in the highlighted box -- some kind of hybrid between the two, maybe up to the WG. if they get really stuck arriving at consensus, just let the discussion serve as documentation rather than trying for consensus. i agree, it would be a shame to run a working group through another tough consensus process at the very end. especially tough if they weren't at consensus on their findings and were reopening old wounds. demographic information -- all good -- wisecracks about the NSA notwithstanding. although another approach to consider might be to have the information be public. i don't know -- tradeoffs. something to puzzle about. size, complexity, length -- yep, this is where i came into the discussion -- the previous questionnaire was really long/hard to fill out. but it would be interesting to see if there's a way to build in "optional" sections if people had a lot to say. my post-mortem on my experience chairing the Fast Flux WG took several days to write. if somebody's got a will to do something like that, we should provide a way. methodology -- no strong opinions either way here. > ? Learning Objectives: https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag first pass -- WOW! i like these a lot. there may be more, but this is a really good start. good for: starting off the WG to set norms and expectations, periodically referring back to "mid flight" to offer course-corrections to the process as its's going, and reflection on opportunities for improvement at the end. since we're a PDP-process focused group, i'm wondering if there's a way to work a couple of LOs in about the framework itself. the goal being to see if there WG members noticed flaws in the process that got in their way. a good source of ideas might be the questionnaire i was so cranky about. i was mostly cranky because it was hard to answer, but maybe there's a way to rework some of those into LO's that fit in here? > ? Questionnaire (Draft v1): https://community.icann.org/x/EC1-Ag this looks like it flows pretty directly out of the LO's -- so maybe we focus on those first? i really like how the number of LOs is longer than the number of questions -- this looks like a questionnaire that could be filled out pretty quickly. and maybe it's just distributed as a fill-in-blanks PDF or spreadsheet (to make scraping the answers easier)? same reactions on the "policy-process" part being a little light, perhaps. not a bunch more questions, but maybe one or two for those reflective types who want a place to note something in the PDP that got in the WG's way? > > If you want to follow my developmental logic path, I suggest starting at the top and proceeding in the sequence shown. If you want to skip to the actual draft questionnaire, it is contained in the bottom linked page. I included a few notes which you should bear in mind before perusing the actual questions. > > At this stage, I would like to receive your feedback before proceeding further to be sure that I am on a productive track. You will certainly notice that this instrument is no longer focused on the WG Guidelines documentation (the original survey scope); instead, on the effectiveness of the WG?s operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. I included my rationale for that shift at the top of the Design Considerations page. > > Feel free to comment on the email list or add comments to the individual Wiki pages. I will attend to both sources over the next week or so as you have time to review and evaluate my recommended approach to the WG Self-Assessment. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ken.bour at verizon.net Tue Jun 11 00:37:36 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:37:36 -0400 Subject: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire References: <015c01ce661b$2bb64a00$8322de00$@verizon.net> <3F5DA06C-2D40-4097-B9DD-92A80087D44F@haven2.com> Message-ID: <01aa01ce663b$df287fc0$9d797f40$@verizon.net> Mikey just noticed that I replied only to him on this email and not to the entire group. Remedying that inadvertent error now. From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour at verizon.net] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 7:30 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire Mikey: Thanks for another blazingly fast response. RE: PDP Framework You mentioned this item several times in your initial comments, but I'll address it once here. This is an interesting question as to whether the PDP framework itself is so intricately linked to the WG process that it could, on its own merits, influence the overall effectiveness of the WG. If I were to rephrase your inquiry, would this be close: "If the PDP process is cumbersome and difficult to follow, a WG's Mission could be challenged (if not inhibited) from the outset. If we are intending to evaluate a WG's effectiveness, one of the issues may be the very subject/content (and attendant processes) it is required to follow, e.g., the PDP framework." If I'm near the mark, I had not thought about that linkage until you raised it. Most of the WGs I have supported were not PDP-related, so it escaped my attention. I will be interested to see what others have to add on this matter. Another option would be to develop a separate survey-like instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of the PDP Framework itself although, as you point out, it is the WG construct that is asked to navigate those waters. Hmmm. RE: Individual vs. Collective For consistency (analytical, historical, design), I think we should have one defined process vs. having each WG roll its own. That design constraint would not preclude identifying a couple of overarching questions that we want each WG to address every time (via separate format). Furthermore, it is not inconceivable to have a couple of questions that are addressed both collectively and individually. Then, we could compare both sets of answers to see whether the WG answered similarly or differently from the individuals that made up the team (very intriguing and reminiscent of the Abilene Paradox puzzle). RE: Demographics I agree that private vs. public is complex and there are pros/cons to be weighed. I tend to favor the collection of personal identifying info for the reasons provided, but safeguarding that info in order to promote honesty and candor (still requires trust). Even in a largely volunteer organization, there are some people who will not be comfortable offering what may be perceived as negative commentary unless they can do so under the cover of anonymity. I think it might be cybernetics that advises: in dynamic systems, we learn primarily from error and, if failures go unreported and undiscovered, then those improvement opportunities are forever lost. RE: Size, Length, Complexity Hopefully, providing several open-ended text boxes will be generally sufficient for those who have a "lot to say." I'm not sure that any online survey instrument could be developed that would accommodate the exhaustive and insightful analysis you authored on your experience with the Fast Flux WG. From my recollection, that was and probably will always be remembered as a ONE-OF-A-KIND! J RE: Learning Objectives You are exactly correct. I started by extracting LOs from the WG Guidelines and Charter material; then, I built the questionnaire. Once I got into it, I began seeing that I could fold a couple of topics together (similar content) and ended up with fewer questions. Thanks for the input! I am energized by the responses thus far and am looking forward to continuing this process. Ken 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: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:27 PM To: Ken Bour Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN) Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire hi Ken, i really like the work you've done. i've sprinkled reactions inline, but overall this is a great start. thanks, mikey On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: SCI Team Members: Since our last teleconference, I have been working on the development of a WG Self-Assessment instrument. Rather than inundate the SCI email list with multiple drafts and iterations during the incubation period, I thought it would be more helpful to post my work products to the ICANN Community Wiki. I have now reached a point where I think the material is ready for your review. In particular, you will find the following pages under the GNSO tab (category) and Working Group Resources space. Below is the hierarchy including links: WG Self-Assessments: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag really good introduction. on second reading i realized that one thing that might need expanding in the "lower-level" chunks of work is the LOs and questions that try to tease out the effectiveness of the formally-documented processes (the newly-changed PDP, developed by all the WGs that came before us). not a lot more, but just a bit. i think one of the reactions i had to the first questionnaire was that it was too focused on the formal-process stuff. so there's some balancing to be found. i could certainly live with the balance you've struck in this first pass -- but if there was a graceful way to add just a little more review of the PDP framework, i'd like that too. not too much though. we're going for "just right." :-) . Design Considerations: https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag individual vs collective -- i like where you're going in the highlighted box -- some kind of hybrid between the two, maybe up to the WG. if they get really stuck arriving at consensus, just let the discussion serve as documentation rather than trying for consensus. i agree, it would be a shame to run a working group through another tough consensus process at the very end. especially tough if they weren't at consensus on their findings and were reopening old wounds. demographic information -- all good -- wisecracks about the NSA notwithstanding. although another approach to consider might be to have the information be public. i don't know -- tradeoffs. something to puzzle about. size, complexity, length -- yep, this is where i came into the discussion -- the previous questionnaire was really long/hard to fill out. but it would be interesting to see if there's a way to build in "optional" sections if people had a lot to say. my post-mortem on my experience chairing the Fast Flux WG took several days to write. if somebody's got a will to do something like that, we should provide a way. methodology -- no strong opinions either way here. . Learning Objectives: https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag first pass -- WOW! i like these a lot. there may be more, but this is a really good start. good for: starting off the WG to set norms and expectations, periodically referring back to "mid flight" to offer course-corrections to the process as its's going, and reflection on opportunities for improvement at the end. since we're a PDP-process focused group, i'm wondering if there's a way to work a couple of LOs in about the framework itself. the goal being to see if there WG members noticed flaws in the process that got in their way. a good source of ideas might be the questionnaire i was so cranky about. i was mostly cranky because it was hard to answer, but maybe there's a way to rework some of those into LO's that fit in here? . Questionnaire (Draft v1): https://community.icann.org/x/EC1-Ag this looks like it flows pretty directly out of the LO's -- so maybe we focus on those first? i really like how the number of LOs is longer than the number of questions -- this looks like a questionnaire that could be filled out pretty quickly. and maybe it's just distributed as a fill-in-blanks PDF or spreadsheet (to make scraping the answers easier)? same reactions on the "policy-process" part being a little light, perhaps. not a bunch more questions, but maybe one or two for those reflective types who want a place to note something in the PDP that got in the WG's way? If you want to follow my developmental logic path, I suggest starting at the top and proceeding in the sequence shown. If you want to skip to the actual draft questionnaire, it is contained in the bottom linked page. I included a few notes which you should bear in mind before perusing the actual questions. At this stage, I would like to receive your feedback before proceeding further to be sure that I am on a productive track. You will certainly notice that this instrument is no longer focused on the WG Guidelines documentation (the original survey scope); instead, on the effectiveness of the WG's operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. I included my rationale for that shift at the top of the Design Considerations page. Feel free to comment on the email list or add comments to the individual Wiki pages. I will attend to both sources over the next week or so as you have time to review and evaluate my recommended approach to the WG Self-Assessment. 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: From mike at haven2.com Tue Jun 11 01:31:40 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:31:40 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire References: <4B72CE0C-0928-42DE-86F5-4CD7639729F3@haven2.com> Message-ID: <6896545F-19D3-4DA1-B644-9F34CA4F5443@haven2.com> hi Ken, "blazing fast" or "lost in the pile of overdue email" -- those are your choices. :-) On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: > Mikey: > > Thanks for another blazingly fast response? > > RE: PDP Framework > You mentioned this item several times in your initial comments, but I?ll address it once here. This is an interesting question as to whether the PDP framework itself is so intricately linked to the WG process that it could, on its own merits, influence the overall effectiveness of the WG. If I were to rephrase your inquiry, would this be close: ?If the PDP process is cumbersome and difficult to follow, a WG?s Mission could be challenged (if not inhibited) from the outset. If we are intending to evaluate a WG?s effectiveness, one of the issues may be the very subject/content (and attendant processes) it is required to follow, e.g., the PDP framework.? If I?m near the mark, I had not thought about that linkage until you raised it. Most of the WGs I have supported were not PDP-related, so it escaped my attention. I will be interested to see what others have to add on this matter. Another option would be to develop a separate survey-like instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of the PDP Framework itself although, as you point out, it is the WG construct that is asked to navigate those waters. Hmmm? really close on rephrasing my question -- but where i'm coming from is that *this* gang (the SCI) is really charged with evaluating the effectiveness of the process that was put in place as a result of all those committees. so it seems like we need to gather some "is that process effective?" type data in addition to the "was the WG effective?" stuff. so one way to rephrase it would be something like "was there anything in the rules/structure of the PDP that got in the way?" could be something like you described -- where the WG was put at a disadvantage from the start. or it could be something in the middle or end of the PDP rules that caused a problem. this is the "rules committee" type function that the SCI is charged with -- if the rules that our predecessors cooked up are flawed, we're the clean up crew that's supposed to figure out ways to hammer down the last remaining sharp edges. does that help clarify? > > RE: Individual vs. Collective > For consistency (analytical, historical, design), I think we should have one defined process vs. having each WG roll its own. That design constraint would not preclude identifying a couple of overarching questions that we want each WG to address every time (via separate format). Furthermore, it is not inconceivable to have a couple of questions that are addressed both collectively and individually. Then, we could compare both sets of answers to see whether the WG answered similarly or differently from the individuals that made up the team (very intriguing and reminiscent of the Abilene Paradox puzzle). > > RE: Demographics > I agree that private vs. public is complex and there are pros/cons to be weighed. I tend to favor the collection of personal identifying info for the reasons provided, but safeguarding that info in order to promote honesty and candor (still requires trust). Even in a largely volunteer organization, there are some people who will not be comfortable offering what may be perceived as negative commentary unless they can do so under the cover of anonymity. I think it might be cybernetics that advises: in dynamic systems, we learn primarily from error and, if failures go unreported and undiscovered, then those improvement opportunities are forever lost. yep, absolutely right -- i'm pretty likely to be the first recipient of this type of feedback (it seems like i'm chairing all but a few of the current PDPs). and i really want people to feel comfortable with offering candid feedback. so i think i retract that idea of not using anonymous data. swing and a miss. sorry about that. > > RE: Size, Length, Complexity > Hopefully, providing several open-ended text boxes will be generally sufficient for those who have a ?lot to say.? I?m not sure that any online survey instrument could be developed that would accommodate the exhaustive and insightful analysis you authored on your experience with the Fast Flux WG. From my recollection, that was and probably will always be remembered as a ONE-OF-A-KIND! J that was indeed a hum-dinger. and you're right, i think this could be addressed with a few open text-boxes. maybe accompanied with an invitation to submit a separate document if it would be easier. back to the anonymity issue too -- i was happy to pen and post a long rant and put my name on it, but some may not. > > RE: Learning Objectives > You are exactly correct. I started by extracting LOs from the WG Guidelines and Charter material; then, I built the questionnaire. Once I got into it, I began seeing that I could fold a couple of topics together (similar content) and ended up with fewer questions. very cool. nicely done. > > Thanks for the input! I am energized by the responses thus far and am looking forward to continuing this process? i think this might be a HUGE long-term help to the process. let's keep at it. thanks, mikey > > Ken > > 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: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:27 PM > To: Ken Bour > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN) > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire > > hi Ken, > > i really like the work you've done. i've sprinkled reactions inline, but overall this is a great start. > > thanks, > > mikey > > > On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Ken Bour" wrote: > > > SCI Team Members: > > Since our last teleconference, I have been working on the development of a WG Self-Assessment instrument. Rather than inundate the SCI email list with multiple drafts and iterations during the incubation period, I thought it would be more helpful to post my work products to the ICANN Community Wiki. I have now reached a point where I think the material is ready for your review. > > In particular, you will find the following pages under the GNSO tab (category) and Working Group Resources space. Below is the hierarchy including links: > > WG Self-Assessments: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag > > really good introduction. on second reading i realized that one thing that might need expanding in the "lower-level" chunks of work is the LOs and questions that try to tease out the effectiveness of the formally-documented processes (the newly-changed PDP, developed by all the WGs that came before us). not a lot more, but just a bit. i think one of the reactions i had to the first questionnaire was that it was too focused on the formal-process stuff. so there's some balancing to be found. i could certainly live with the balance you've struck in this first pass -- but if there was a graceful way to add just a little more review of the PDP framework, i'd like that too. not too much though. we're going for "just right." :-) > > > ? Design Considerations: https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag > > individual vs collective -- i like where you're going in the highlighted box -- some kind of hybrid between the two, maybe up to the WG. if they get really stuck arriving at consensus, just let the discussion serve as documentation rather than trying for consensus. i agree, it would be a shame to run a working group through another tough consensus process at the very end. especially tough if they weren't at consensus on their findings and were reopening old wounds. > > demographic information -- all good -- wisecracks about the NSA notwithstanding. although another approach to consider might be to have the information be public. i don't know -- tradeoffs. something to puzzle about. > > size, complexity, length -- yep, this is where i came into the discussion -- the previous questionnaire was really long/hard to fill out. but it would be interesting to see if there's a way to build in "optional" sections if people had a lot to say. my post-mortem on my experience chairing the Fast Flux WG took several days to write. if somebody's got a will to do something like that, we should provide a way. > > methodology -- no strong opinions either way here. > > > > ? Learning Objectives: https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag > > first pass -- WOW! i like these a lot. there may be more, but this is a really good start. good for: starting off the WG to set norms and expectations, periodically referring back to "mid flight" to offer course-corrections to the process as its's going, and reflection on opportunities for improvement at the end. > > since we're a PDP-process focused group, i'm wondering if there's a way to work a couple of LOs in about the framework itself. the goal being to see if there WG members noticed flaws in the process that got in their way. a good source of ideas might be the questionnaire i was so cranky about. i was mostly cranky because it was hard to answer, but maybe there's a way to rework some of those into LO's that fit in here? > > > > ? Questionnaire (Draft v1): https://community.icann.org/x/EC1-Ag > > this looks like it flows pretty directly out of the LO's -- so maybe we focus on those first? i really like how the number of LOs is longer than the number of questions -- this looks like a questionnaire that could be filled out pretty quickly. and maybe it's just distributed as a fill-in-blanks PDF or spreadsheet (to make scraping the answers easier)? > > same reactions on the "policy-process" part being a little light, perhaps. not a bunch more questions, but maybe one or two for those reflective types who want a place to note something in the PDP that got in the WG's way? > > > > > If you want to follow my developmental logic path, I suggest starting at the top and proceeding in the sequence shown. If you want to skip to the actual draft questionnaire, it is contained in the bottom linked page. I included a few notes which you should bear in mind before perusing the actual questions. > > At this stage, I would like to receive your feedback before proceeding further to be sure that I am on a productive track. You will certainly notice that this instrument is no longer focused on the WG Guidelines documentation (the original survey scope); instead, on the effectiveness of the WG?s operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. I included my rationale for that shift at the top of the Design Considerations page. > > Feel free to comment on the email list or add comments to the individual Wiki pages. I will attend to both sources over the next week or so as you have time to review and evaluate my recommended approach to the WG Self-Assessment. > > Regards, > > Ken Bour > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ken.bour at verizon.net Wed Jun 12 15:42:55 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:42:55 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Message-ID: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> SCI Members: I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team member expertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? Ken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julia.charvolen at icann.org Wed Jun 12 19:40:46 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:40:46 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group - Wednesday 12 June 2013 Message-ID: Dear All, The next IGO-INGO Protections policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group call is scheduled for Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 16:00 UTC for 2 hours. Please find the MP3 recording of the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group teleconference held on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 1500 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20130612-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jim Bikoff ? IPC/IOC Avri Doria ? NCSG Chuck Gomes ? RySG Alan Greenberg ? ALAC Catherine Gribbin ? Red Cross Stephane Hankins ? Red Cross Red Crescent Wolfgang Kleinw?chter ? NCSG David Maher ? RySG Kiran Malancharuvil ? IPC Judd Lauter ? IOC/IOC Osvaldo Novoa ? ISPCP Christopher Rassi - Red Cross Thomas Rickert ? NCA ?Working group chair Greg Shatan ? IPC Claudia MacMaster Tamarit ? ISO David Roache-Turner - WIPO Mary Wong - NCUC Mason Cole - GNSO Council vice chair ? RrSG Apologies: Guilaine Fournet - IEC ICANN Staff: Berry Cobb Brian Peck Erika Randall Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat Transcript 12 June 2013: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julia.charvolen at icann.org Wed Jun 12 19:42:30 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:42:30 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] APOLOGIES for previous email In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Please do not take into account the previous email that has been sent. My sincere apologies for this mistake. Best regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Fri Jun 14 15:11:37 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:11:37 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> Message-ID: <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> hi Ken, see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. mikey On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: > SCI Members: > > I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. > > I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). > > In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. > > This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. > > I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ken.bour at verizon.net Tue Jun 18 19:05:21 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:05:21 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> Message-ID: <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> Mikey: Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG?s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team?s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. Ken 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire hi Ken, see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. mikey On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: SCI Members: I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions ( https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). In this new Draft v2 iteration ( https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? 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: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jun 18 20:06:37 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:06:37 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> Message-ID: <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> Dear Ken, Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-??-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now. My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). Thanks, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Mikey: Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG?s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team?s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. Ken 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire hi Ken, see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. mikey On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour > wrote: SCI Members: I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions ( https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). In this new Draft v2 iteration ( https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? 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: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jun 18 20:17:55 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:17:55 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019901ce6c60$ec6930a0$c53b91e0$@rnapartners.com> Dear all, Recognizing that our business lives preoccupy our time, I wanted to send a gentle reminder to all Committee members to please add your input into the Charter revisions. It would be very helpful if you could block out 30-60 minutes of your time to give it a long look and add your amendments between now and July 2nd. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Monday, June 10, 2013 07:39 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Per Ron's request to send this around again, attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from that meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that is scheduled for 02 July 2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 19 11:50:29 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:50:29 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> I would agree with Ron. The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we should pick it up and try to find answers. I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be applicable. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Dear Ken, Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-?-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now. My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). Thanks, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Mikey: Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG?s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team?s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. Ken 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire hi Ken, see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. mikey On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: SCI Members: I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? 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: From mike at haven2.com Thu Jun 20 12:30:31 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:30:31 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> Message-ID: <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> hi all, i don't have super-strong feelings about this. but? i am still trying to figure out what our mission is. aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? confusedly yours, mikey On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:50 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > I would agree with Ron. > > The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we should pick it up and try to find answers. > I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be applicable. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Ron Andruff > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM > To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire > > Dear Ken, > > Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: > > 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. > > On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. > > > Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-?-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. > > PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now. > > My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). > > Thanks, > > RA > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 > To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire > > Mikey: > > Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG?s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team?s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. > > I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: > > 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. > > 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. > > 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. > > On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. > > Ken > > 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire > > hi Ken, > > see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. > > this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. > > for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. > > if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. > > one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. > > thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. > > mikey > > > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: > > > SCI Members: > > I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. > > I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). > > In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. > > This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. > > I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? > > Ken > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Jun 20 15:00:21 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:00:21 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> Message-ID: <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> Let me try to recall the pioneers?? thinking was or how I??m interpreting it. 1.. aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? No. We don??t invent new rules even less important ones. 2. wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? I think this mandate should be given by the council to a special team (maybe the ??old?? PDP WG) 3. wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? Agreed (see 2.) 4. wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? Yes but under a council mandate. I could agree to all of your questions, Mikey, to move things towards improvement. But the SCI hasn??t the know-how to develop PDP recommendations ?C also some members are extremely knoledgeable. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:30 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Ken Bour' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire hi all, i don't have super-strong feelings about this. but?? i am still trying to figure out what our mission is. aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? confusedly yours, mikey On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:50 AM, WUKnoben wrote: I would agree with Ron. The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we should pick it up and try to find answers. I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be applicable. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Dear Ken, Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-??-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now. My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). Thanks, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire Mikey: Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG??s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team??s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. Ken 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire hi Ken, see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. mikey On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: SCI Members: I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ??Aha!?? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ?? Processes ?? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ??Background Contributor?? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team?? Ken 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: From mike at haven2.com Thu Jun 20 19:37:07 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:37:07 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> Message-ID: ah! i get it. never mind. :-) m On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:00 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > Let me try to recall the pioneers? thinking was or how I?m interpreting it. > aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? > No. We don?t invent new rules even less important ones. > > 2. wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? > > I think this mandate should be given by the council to a special team (maybe the ?old? PDP WG) > > 3. wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? > > Agreed (see 2.) > > 4. wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? > > Yes but under a council mandate. > > I could agree to all of your questions, Mikey, to move things towards improvement. But the SCI hasn?t the know-how to develop PDP recommendations ? also some members are extremely knoledgeable. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Mike O'Connor > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:30 PM > To: WUKnoben > Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Ken Bour' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire > > hi all, > > i don't have super-strong feelings about this. but? > > i am still trying to figure out what our mission is. aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? > > confusedly yours, > > mikey > > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:50 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > >> I would agree with Ron. >> >> The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we should pick it up and try to find answers. >> I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be applicable. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> From: Ron Andruff >> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM >> To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >> >> Dear Ken, >> >> Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: >> >> 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. >> >> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. >> >> >> Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-?-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. >> >> PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now. >> >> My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). >> >> Thanks, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 >> To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >> >> Mikey: >> >> Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG?s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team?s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. >> >> I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: >> >> 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. >> >> 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. >> >> 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. >> >> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. >> >> Ken >> >> 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >> >> hi Ken, >> >> see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. >> >> this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. >> >> for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. >> >> if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. >> >> one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. >> >> thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. >> >> mikey >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: >> >> >> SCI Members: >> >> I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. >> >> I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). >> >> In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. >> >> This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. >> >> I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? >> >> Ken >> >> >> >> 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.) > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 20 20:33:24 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:33:24 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> Message-ID: Hi, In many ways, I actually agree with Mikey and beleive that especially area 2 is within the mandate we currently have. I even beleive the SCI has the ability to recommend changes to the PDP process if it encountered problems in any of the issues sent to it or found something in the periodic reviews of the various mechanisms we have never yet done. But, be that as it may, I wanted to let you know that the ATRT2 has made a decision to put out a RFP for a Independent Consultant to do a study inot the multistakeholder effectiveness of the GNSO PDP. A draft of the proposal* can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/2013/000482.html At today's ATRT2 meeting we discussed some few changes to the wording, but I beleive we will be putting this out to bid soon. avri * No, I did not initiate this proposal. That was Alan Greenberg, but many of the members of the ATRT2 thought this was something that needed to be done. I did not think it was time for this yet, as the new PDP methodology is still young. On 20 Jun 2013, at 11:00, WUKnoben wrote: > Let me try to recall the pioneers? thinking was or how I?m interpreting it. > ? aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? > No. We don?t invent new rules even less important ones. > > 2. wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? > > I think this mandate should be given by the council to a special team (maybe the ?old? PDP WG) > > 3. wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? > > Agreed (see 2.) > > 4. wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? > > Yes but under a council mandate. > > I could agree to all of your questions, Mikey, to move things towards improvement. But the SCI hasn?t the know-how to develop PDP recommendations ? also some members are extremely knoledgeable. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Mike O'Connor > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:30 PM > To: WUKnoben > Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Ken Bour' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire > > hi all, > > i don't have super-strong feelings about this. but? > > i am still trying to figure out what our mission is. aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? > > confusedly yours, > > mikey > > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:50 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > >> I would agree with Ron. >> >> The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we should pick it up and try to find answers. >> I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be applicable. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> From: Ron Andruff >> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM >> To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >> >> Dear Ken, >> >> Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: >> >> 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. >> >> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. >> >> >> Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-?-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. >> >> PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now. >> >> My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). >> >> Thanks, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 >> To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >> >> Mikey: >> >> Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG?s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team?s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. >> >> I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: >> >> 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. >> >> 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. >> >> 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. >> >> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. >> >> Ken >> >> 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >> >> hi Ken, >> >> see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. >> >> this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. >> >> for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. >> >> if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. >> >> one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. >> >> thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. >> >> mikey >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: >> >> >> SCI Members: >> >> I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. >> >> I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). >> >> In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. >> >> This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. >> >> I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? >> >> Ken >> >> >> >> 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.) > From mike at haven2.com Thu Jun 20 21:01:06 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:01:06 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> Message-ID: <4D07ED47-666B-4789-A914-B87D4D30D8E0@haven2.com> let me take another run at my questions. i think by doing that, i can tidy things up a bit. starting off with our *current* charter: "The SCI will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council. my question 1 is too broad -- we're supposed to "review and assess", not "fine tune" the way i posed the question. so what if we narrow the question to 1 aren't we supposed to review and assess the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? i bet Wolf-Urich will now nod. then, my next question would become 2 wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about the rough edges of the new PDP that we're supposed to review and assess? again, i bet that would cheer Wolf-Urich up a bit. my third and fourth questions could then be reworked like this 3 wouldn't the pioneers who have participated as members of Working Groups operating under the revised process be a good group to ask? 4 wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? how does that go down? better? Avri, that RFP from the ATRT2 is fascinating -- and offers some collaboration and coordination opportunities with the upcoming PDP on Policy and Implementation. surely there's a way that the two efforts can leverage each other. should we drag that idea into the drafting team for that WG? thanks for sharing all that. really good stuff. mikey On Jun 20, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > In many ways, I actually agree with Mikey and beleive that especially area 2 is within the mandate we currently have. I even beleive the SCI has the ability to recommend changes to the PDP process if it encountered problems in any of the issues sent to it or found something in the periodic reviews of the various mechanisms we have never yet done. > > But, be that as it may, I wanted to let you know that the ATRT2 has made a decision to put out a RFP for a Independent Consultant to do a study inot the multistakeholder effectiveness of the GNSO PDP. > > A draft of the proposal* can be found at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/2013/000482.html > > At today's ATRT2 meeting we discussed some few changes to the wording, but I beleive we will be putting this out to bid soon. > > avri > > * No, I did not initiate this proposal. That was Alan Greenberg, but many of the members of the ATRT2 thought this was something that needed to be done. I did not think it was time for this yet, as the new PDP methodology is still young. > > On 20 Jun 2013, at 11:00, WUKnoben wrote: > >> Let me try to recall the pioneers? thinking was or how I?m interpreting it. >> ? aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? >> No. We don?t invent new rules even less important ones. >> >> 2. wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? >> >> I think this mandate should be given by the council to a special team (maybe the ?old? PDP WG) >> >> 3. wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? >> >> Agreed (see 2.) >> >> 4. wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? >> >> Yes but under a council mandate. >> >> I could agree to all of your questions, Mikey, to move things towards improvement. But the SCI hasn?t the know-how to develop PDP recommendations ? also some members are extremely knoledgeable. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> From: Mike O'Connor >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:30 PM >> To: WUKnoben >> Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Ken Bour' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >> >> hi all, >> >> i don't have super-strong feelings about this. but? >> >> i am still trying to figure out what our mission is. aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? >> >> confusedly yours, >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:50 AM, WUKnoben wrote: >> >>> I would agree with Ron. >>> >>> The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we should pick it up and try to find answers. >>> I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be applicable. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> From: Ron Andruff >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM >>> To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >>> >>> Dear Ken, >>> >>> Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: >>> >>> 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. >>> >>> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. >>> >>> >>> Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-?-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. >>> >>> PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now. >>> >>> My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> RNA Partners >>> 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 >>> To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >>> >>> Mikey: >>> >>> Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG?s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team?s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. >>> >>> I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: >>> >>> 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. >>> >>> 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. >>> >>> 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. >>> >>> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire >>> >>> hi Ken, >>> >>> see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. >>> >>> this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. >>> >>> for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. >>> >>> if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. >>> >>> one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. >>> >>> thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: >>> >>> >>> SCI Members: >>> >>> I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ?Aha!? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. >>> >>> I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). >>> >>> In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ? Processes ? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. >>> >>> This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ?Background Contributor? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. >>> >>> I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team? >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.) >> > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Thu Jun 20 21:28:52 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:28:52 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4D07ED47-666B-4789-A914-B87D4D30D8E0@haven2.com> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> <4D07ED47-666B-4789-A914-B87D4D30D8E0@haven2.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CCF9529@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Now I am really confused about the RFP. I thought the SCI was supposed to review the new PDP process as an "Improvement Implementation issue" after sufficient time has passed and that there was a feeling that sufficient time has not passed. 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. -----Original Message----- 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: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:01 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Ken Bour; Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN) Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire let me take another run at my questions. i think by doing that, i can tidy things up a bit. starting off with our *current* charter: "The SCI will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council. my question 1 is too broad -- we're supposed to "review and assess", not "fine tune" the way i posed the question. so what if we narrow the question to 1 aren't we supposed to review and assess the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? i bet Wolf-Urich will now nod. then, my next question would become 2 wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about the rough edges of the new PDP that we're supposed to review and assess? again, i bet that would cheer Wolf-Urich up a bit. my third and fourth questions could then be reworked like this 3 wouldn't the pioneers who have participated as members of Working Groups operating under the revised process be a good group to ask? 4 wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? how does that go down? better? Avri, that RFP from the ATRT2 is fascinating -- and offers some collaboration and coordination opportunities with the upcoming PDP on Policy and Implementation. surely there's a way that the two efforts can leverage each other. should we drag that idea into the drafting team for that WG? thanks for sharing all that. really good stuff. mikey On Jun 20, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > In many ways, I actually agree with Mikey and beleive that especially area 2 is within the mandate we currently have. I even beleive the SCI has the ability to recommend changes to the PDP process if it encountered problems in any of the issues sent to it or found something in the periodic reviews of the various mechanisms we have never yet done. > > But, be that as it may, I wanted to let you know that the ATRT2 has made a decision to put out a RFP for a Independent Consultant to do a study inot the multistakeholder effectiveness of the GNSO PDP. > > A draft of the proposal* can be found at: > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/2013/000482.html > > At today's ATRT2 meeting we discussed some few changes to the wording, but I beleive we will be putting this out to bid soon. > > avri > > * No, I did not initiate this proposal. That was Alan Greenberg, but many of the members of the ATRT2 thought this was something that needed to be done. I did not think it was time for this yet, as the new PDP methodology is still young. > > On 20 Jun 2013, at 11:00, WUKnoben wrote: > >> Let me try to recall the pioneers?? thinking was or how I??m interpreting it. >> ?6?1 aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? >> No. We don??t invent new rules even less important ones. >> >> 2. wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? >> >> I think this mandate should be given by the council to a >> special team (maybe the ??old?? PDP WG) >> >> 3. wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? >> >> Agreed (see 2.) >> >> 4. wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? >> >> Yes but under a council mandate. >> >> I could agree to all of your questions, Mikey, to move things towards improvement. But the SCI hasn??t the know-how to develop PDP recommendations ?C also some members are extremely knoledgeable. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> From: Mike O'Connor >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:30 PM >> To: WUKnoben >> Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Ken Bour' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment >> Questionnaire >> >> hi all, >> >> i don't have super-strong feelings about this. but?? >> >> i am still trying to figure out what our mission is. aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group to ask? wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? >> >> confusedly yours, >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:50 AM, WUKnoben wrote: >> >>> I would agree with Ron. >>> >>> The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we should pick it up and try to find answers. >>> I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be applicable. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> From: Ron Andruff >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM >>> To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment >>> Questionnaire >>> >>> Dear Ken, >>> >>> Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: >>> >>> 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. >>> >>> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. >>> >>> >>> Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-??-vis establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. >>> >>> PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking for now. >>> >>> My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> RNA Partners >>> 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 >>> To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment >>> Questionnaire >>> >>> Mikey: >>> >>> Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer to the WG??s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team??s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the questionnaire. >>> >>> I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: >>> >>> 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. >>> >>> 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue. >>> >>> 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method. >>> >>> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs. >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment >>> Questionnaire >>> >>> hi Ken, >>> >>> see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. >>> >>> this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful. >>> >>> for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. >>> >>> if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. >>> >>> one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment. >>> >>> thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: >>> >>> >>> SCI Members: >>> >>> I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an ??Aha!?? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. >>> >>> I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). >>> >>> In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ?? Processes ?? Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. >>> >>> This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ??Background Contributor?? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. >>> >>> I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward >>> to additional feedback from the team?? >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.) >> > > 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 From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Jun 20 22:01:52 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:01:52 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <4D07ED47-666B-4789-A914-B87D4D30D8E0@haven2.com> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> <4D07ED47-666B-4789-A914-B87D4D30D8E0@haven2.com> Message-ID: I tend to nod - not exactly knowing whether midnight (my time) is the driver. Nevertheless I think we should start framing this work and then bring it before the council in advance to digging into details. Good night Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:01 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Ken Bour ; Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN) Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire let me take another run at my questions. i think by doing that, i can tidy things up a bit. starting off with our *current* charter: "The SCI will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council. my question 1 is too broad -- we're supposed to "review and assess", not "fine tune" the way i posed the question. so what if we narrow the question to 1 aren't we supposed to review and assess the new PDP that came out of the committees that preceded us? i bet Wolf-Urich will now nod. then, my next question would become 2 wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about the rough edges of the new PDP that we're supposed to review and assess? again, i bet that would cheer Wolf-Urich up a bit. my third and fourth questions could then be reworked like this 3 wouldn't the pioneers who have participated as members of Working Groups operating under the revised process be a good group to ask? 4 wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? how does that go down? better? Avri, that RFP from the ATRT2 is fascinating -- and offers some collaboration and coordination opportunities with the upcoming PDP on Policy and Implementation. surely there's a way that the two efforts can leverage each other. should we drag that idea into the drafting team for that WG? thanks for sharing all that. really good stuff. mikey On Jun 20, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > In many ways, I actually agree with Mikey and beleive that especially area > 2 is within the mandate we currently have. I even beleive the SCI has the > ability to recommend changes to the PDP process if it encountered problems > in any of the issues sent to it or found something in the periodic reviews > of the various mechanisms we have never yet done. > > But, be that as it may, I wanted to let you know that the ATRT2 has made a > decision to put out a RFP for a Independent Consultant to do a study inot > the multistakeholder effectiveness of the GNSO PDP. > > A draft of the proposal* can be found at: > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/2013/000482.html > > At today's ATRT2 meeting we discussed some few changes to the wording, but > I beleive we will be putting this out to bid soon. > > avri > > * No, I did not initiate this proposal. That was Alan Greenberg, but many > of the members of the ATRT2 thought this was something that needed to be > done. I did not think it was time for this yet, as the new PDP > methodology is still young. > > On 20 Jun 2013, at 11:00, WUKnoben wrote: > >> Let me try to recall the pioneers?? thinking was or how I??m interpreting >> it. >> ?6?1 aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP >> that came out of the committees that preceded us? >> No. We don??t invent new rules even less important ones. >> >> 2. wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of >> the PDP that could use improvement? >> >> I think this mandate should be given by the council to a special >> team (maybe the ??old?? PDP WG) >> >> 3. wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good >> group to ask? >> >> Agreed (see 2.) >> >> 4. wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? >> >> Yes but under a council mandate. >> >> I could agree to all of your questions, Mikey, to move things towards >> improvement. But the SCI hasn??t the know-how to develop PDP >> recommendations ?C also some members are extremely knoledgeable. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> From: Mike O'Connor >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:30 PM >> To: WUKnoben >> Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Ken Bour' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; >> 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment >> Questionnaire >> >> hi all, >> >> i don't have super-strong feelings about this. but?? >> >> i am still trying to figure out what our mission is. aren't we supposed >> to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the >> committees that preceded us? wouldn't it be helpful to gather some >> insights about rough edges of the PDP that could use improvement? >> wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group >> to ask? wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that? >> >> confusedly yours, >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:50 AM, WUKnoben >> wrote: >> >>> I would agree with Ron. >>> >>> The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The >>> experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we >>> should pick it up and try to find answers. >>> I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be >>> applicable. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> From: Ron Andruff >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM >>> To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment >>> Questionnaire >>> >>> Dear Ken, >>> >>> Thank you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email >>> exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following: >>> >>> 3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and >>> probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or >>> other method. >>> >>> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG >>> might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate >>> questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP >>> methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample >>> of appropriate WGs. >>> >>> >>> Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For >>> my part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-??-vis >>> establishing an assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all >>> as opposed to different questionnaires for different purposes. Better >>> to try to compare apples to apples as best we can. >>> >>> PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we >>> are looking for now. >>> >>> My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> RA >>> >>> Ron Andruff >>> RNA Partners >>> 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: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05 >>> To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)' >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment >>> Questionnaire >>> >>> Mikey: >>> >>> Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS >>> dimension is intended to refer to the WG??s internal operations (norms, >>> logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider >>> the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon >>> your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st >>> question of Section II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other >>> requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team??s ability to >>> accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the >>> questionnaire. >>> >>> I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means >>> for evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons: >>> >>> 1) The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not >>> specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the >>> PDP is specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws. >>> >>> 2) Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such >>> questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. >>> The WG Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of >>> methodology that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain >>> name policy issue. >>> >>> 3) The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and >>> probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or >>> other method. >>> >>> On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG >>> might address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate >>> questionnaire could be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP >>> methodology itself and could be administered to all or a random sample >>> of appropriate WGs. >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> 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, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM >>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment >>> Questionnaire >>> >>> hi Ken, >>> >>> see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies. >>> >>> this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit i'd like to see >>> us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to get a question >>> or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP >>> process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there >>> already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking >>> back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a >>> WG is a good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the >>> PDP would be helpful. >>> >>> for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of >>> those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all those end >>> to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP >>> that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG >>> participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and >>> whether they were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a >>> transition in the way that WG's review those comments. at first, the >>> review felt like a burden that we had to get through because it was a >>> requirement imposed on us by the PD. more recently those >>> comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and >>> preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. >>> >>> if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension >>> (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a >>> process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of >>> those comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't >>> want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that >>> case we want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO >>> want to review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well >>> if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness. >>> >>> one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of >>> pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now. what this often >>> turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since the >>> comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the >>> only place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the >>> WG's work. it would be nice to be able to get some data from >>> participants that might give an early indication that something needs to >>> change there. that analysis would also be helpful in the "let's not >>> break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs implementation" >>> conversations that are going on at the moment. >>> >>> thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed. >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour wrote: >>> >>> >>> SCI Members: >>> >>> I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their >>> first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something >>> was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an >>> ??Aha!?? moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, >>> addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. >>> >>> I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but >>> renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few >>> new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a >>> completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions >>> under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions >>> (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag). >>> >>> In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I >>> am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey >>> that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any >>> dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core >>> components: Inputs ?? Processes ?? Outputs. In the first version, I >>> captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the >>> inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside >>> experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon >>> the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other >>> constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization >>> of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, >>> technical, and human. >>> >>> This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds >>> ??Background Contributor?? to the Role list as suggested by Avri. >>> >>> I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to >>> additional feedback from the team?? >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.) >> > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 23 00:08:01 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:08:01 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CCF9529@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> <9E29A53F091040CFA0875343CCD9B7FB@WUKPC> <0D80327D-AD30-4102-A006-AB957332F7CE@haven2.com> <30374885A7314EDAB1BB2BCCFD38DDEC@WUKPC> <4D07ED47-666B-4789-A914-B87D4D30D8E0@haven2.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CCF9529@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <8EFB54F2-982F-42F5-8595-3E59341D38B8@acm.org> On 20 Jun 2013, at 17:28, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Now I am really confused about the RFP. I thought the SCI was supposed to review the new PDP process as an "Improvement Implementation issue" after sufficient time has passed and that there was a feeling that sufficient time has not passed. > Anne That ATRT2work has nothing explicitly to do with the work of this team. There is a broader call for investigation by the ATRT2 into the PDP in terms of whether it meets ICANN's needs for full stakeholder participation. I mentioned it here because it seems relevant. Not that there is anything for this group to do, unless of course the outside researcher decides that talking to this group is worthwhile. I don't have a prediction. As for blending the work of the A&T WG and this work, I can only see it in terms of the A&T taking whatever recommendations that come out of ATRT2 into account - when they come out at the end of 2013. Of course the ATRT2 members will be consulting with the public, including those working toward the A&T WG and I am sure there is a lot to be gleaned in those conversations. avri From AAikman at lrlaw.com Wed Jun 26 21:00:53 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:00:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] In-Reply-To: <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> References: <007e01ce6783$822dcf20$86896d60$@verizon.net> <305640E6-E881-4123-965E-58F71B74E517@haven2.com> <00da01ce6c56$c8701920$59504b60$@verizon.net> <018d01ce6c5f$59c1f760$0d45e620$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD0DADD@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Dear all, I am on a plane and trying to access Adobe Connect via in-air WiFI. We'll see what happens. 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 ? 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jun 26 21:29:14 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:29:14 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD97CD0DADD@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear all, The next meeting is scheduled for 02 July 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET). It is on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2+July+2013. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 5:00 PM To: Ron Andruff , 'Ken Bour' , Mike O'Conner , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Cc: Robert Hoggarth Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Dear all, I am on a plane and trying to access Adobe Connect via in-air WiFI. We'll see what happens. 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 theoriginal message. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: