[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal?

[Avri Doria]

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 <julie.hedlund at icann.org> 
>> Date: 06/09/2013 16:46 (GMT-05:00) 
>> To: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com> 
>> 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" <mike at haven2.com> 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.)
>>> 
>