From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed May 1 20:13:23 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 13:13:23 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Call Canceled 01 May 2013 Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Due to that fact that we had many people who could not attend today's call, any only a small number of people on the call, the SCI members on the call decided to cancel today's call. Our next call is in two weeks on 15 May 2013 at 2000 UTC. See: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/15+May+2013. I will send a proposed agenda shortly and a reminder of action items. 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 Wed May 1 20:18:52 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 13:18:52 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER re: Actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see below the actions and note the updates. Please provide any comments or questions to the list. Our meeting on 01 May 2013 was cancelled. Our next meeting is scheduled for 15 May 2013. A notice will be sent out separately. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Working Group Survey: NOTE UPDATE ? Julie conferred with Rob Hoggarth and he suggested that Ken Bour could be asked to redesign the survey. Julie conferred with J.Scott and he agreed that this would be a good idea. Ken has produced a number of surveys for the GNSO and has expertise in this area. If there are no objections from the SCI Julie will contact Ken to request his assistance. 2. Termination/Suspension of a PDP: NOTE UPDATE ? Wolf-Ulrich sent a motion and redlined document to the GNSO Council to consider at its meeting on 16 May 2013. 3. Resubmitting a Motion: Under review by the ISP and NCUC Constituencies. 4. SCI Charter Revisions: Continue discussions at the next meeting; Julie and Marika provided transcript and background on the development of the original charter. -------------- 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 Wed May 1 20:23:26 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 13:23:26 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for 15 May 2013 Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for the next SCI call on 15 May 2013. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda SCI Call 15 May 2013: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Charter Revision drafting team (30 mins) 5. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) -- Discussion of comments in the Public Forum 7. Working Group Guidelines survey (20 mins) -- Responses from IRTP-C 8. 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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed May 1 20:54:34 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 22:54:34 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Call Canceled 01 May 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: sorry, I missed it. May 01 is the holiday called ?labour?s day? ? and nobody is working... Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:13 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Call Canceled 01 May 2013 Dear SCI members, Due to that fact that we had many people who could not attend today's call, any only a small number of people on the call, the SCI members on the call decided to cancel today's call. Our next call is in two weeks on 15 May 2013 at 2000 UTC. See: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/15+May+2013. I will send a proposed agenda shortly and a reminder of action items. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed May 1 21:07:37 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 17:07:37 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Call Canceled 01 May 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No problem, Wolf-Ulrich. Enjoy the day off! Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:55 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Call Canceled 01 May 2013 sorry, I missed it. May 01 is the holiday called "labour's day" - and nobody is working... Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 10:13 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Call Canceled 01 May 2013 Dear SCI members, Due to that fact that we had many people who could not attend today's call, any only a small number of people on the call, the SCI members on the call decided to cancel today's call. Our next call is in two weeks on 15 May 2013 at 2000 UTC. See: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/15+May+2013. I will send a proposed agenda shortly and a reminder of action items. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Glen at icann.org Thu May 2 22:56:06 2013 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:56:06 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Public Comment:Proposed Modification of GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions Message-ID: FYI http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02may13-en.htm Proposed Modification of GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 2 May 2013 Comment Close Date: 23 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 24 May 2013 Reply Close Date: 14 June 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes * Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is proposing a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures to make the deadline for the submission of reports and motions more precise and uniform. Current Status: As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated on the proposed changes. Next Steps: Following the closing of the public comment forum, the GNSO Council will review the comments received and revise its recommendations, if deemed appropriate. Staff Contact: Julie Hedlund Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity. The GNSO Council thus proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures to make the deadline for the submission of reports and motions more precise and uniform. The proposed modification to the existing language in section 3.3 of the Procedures is as follows, with additions in bold and deletions stricken: Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23:59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO Council is requesting community input on this proposed modification to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Section II: Background: The GNSO, its description, purpose(s), structures (e.g. Council, Stakeholder Groups), and governance mandate are covered in ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Sections 1-6. The Operating Procedures of the GNSO describes those supplementary elements of administration, governance, and other logistics/mechanics that are not already prescribed in the aforementioned ICANN Bylaws. Taken together, the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO Operating Procedures are intended to provide a complete set of rules, procedures, and practices for governing the operations of the GNSO. The ICANN Bylaws require that any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures are subject to a minimum 21 day public comment period ('The GNSO Operating Procedures shall be effective upon the expiration of a twenty-one (21) day public comment period, and shall be subject to Board oversight and review' - see article X, section 3, item 4, http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X). Section III: Document and Resource Links: Current version of the GNSO Operating Procedures - see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf [PDF, 488 KB] Section IV: Additional Information: Not applicable ________________________________ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed May 15 20:19:56 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:19:56 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] CANCELLED 15 May SCI Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Due to lack of attendance the SCI meeting today has been cancelled. We will reschedule to next Wednesday, 22 May. I will send a notice shortly asking for you to RSVP so we can make sure we have enough attendance to hold the meeting next week. 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 Wed May 15 20:27:35 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:27:35 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled. Our next meeting is rescheduled to Wednesday 22 May 2013. PLEASE RSVP FOR THE 22 MAY MEETING BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT WE WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT ATTENDANCE. Please also see below the actions and provide any comments or questions to the list. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Working Group Survey: Julie conferred with Rob Hoggarth and he suggested that Ken Bour could be asked to redesign the survey. Julie conferred with J.Scott and he agreed that this would be a good idea. Ken has produced a number of surveys for the GNSO and has expertise in this area. If there are no objections from the SCI Julie will contact Ken to request his assistance. 2. Termination/Suspension of a PDP: Wolf-Ulrich sent a motion and redlined document to the GNSO Council to consider at its meeting on 16 May 2013. 3. Resubmitting a Motion: Under review by the ISP and NCUC Constituencies. 4. SCI Charter Revisions: Continue discussions at the next meeting; Please review the suggested revisions that will be sent via separate message. -------------- 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 Wed May 15 20:33:16 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:33:16 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For Discussion: SCI Charter Draft Revision In-Reply-To: Message-ID: All, The SCI Charter Drafting Team (J.Scott, Angie, Avri, Wolf-Ulrich, and James) presented the attached proposed revision of the SCI Charter for discussion at the SCI meeting in Beijing. This also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/15+May+2013 under the sub header "For Review." Please review the latest draft for discussion at our next meeting, tentatively rescheduled to Wednesday, 22 May. 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 - CharterReviewTeamv2-130328 .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 27312 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 wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu May 16 05:45:15 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:45:15 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FBBC263E8B5469593298B865A11F382@WUKPC> Thanks Julie, I?ve reserved this meeting Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:27 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items Dear SCI members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled. Our next meeting is rescheduled to Wednesday 22 May 2013. PLEASE RSVP FOR THE 22 MAY MEETING BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT WE WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT ATTENDANCE. Please also see below the actions and provide any comments or questions to the list. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Working Group Survey: Julie conferred with Rob Hoggarth and he suggested that Ken Bour could be asked to redesign the survey. Julie conferred with J.Scott and he agreed that this would be a good idea. Ken has produced a number of surveys for the GNSO and has expertise in this area. If there are no objections from the SCI Julie will contact Ken to request his assistance. 2. Termination/Suspension of a PDP: Wolf-Ulrich sent a motion and redlined document to the GNSO Council to consider at its meeting on 16 May 2013. 3. Resubmitting a Motion: Under review by the ISP and NCUC Constituencies. 4. SCI Charter Revisions: Continue discussions at the next meeting; Please review the suggested revisions that will be sent via separate message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu May 16 07:13:36 2013 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 09:13:36 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Julie, I am confirming attendance. Apologies about missing the last meeting. I had a scheduling mix-up that will hopefully not happen again. Amr On May 15, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear SCI members, > > Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled. Our next meeting is rescheduled to Wednesday 22 May 2013. > > PLEASE RSVP FOR THE 22 MAY MEETING BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT WE WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT ATTENDANCE. > > Please also see below the actions and provide any comments or questions to the list. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > Actions: > > 1. Working Group Survey: Julie conferred with Rob Hoggarth and he suggested that Ken Bour could be asked to redesign the survey. Julie conferred with J.Scott and he agreed that this would be a good idea. Ken has produced a number of surveys for the GNSO and has expertise in this area. If there are no objections from the SCI Julie will contact Ken to request his assistance. > > 2. Termination/Suspension of a PDP: Wolf-Ulrich sent a motion and redlined document to the GNSO Council to consider at its meeting on 16 May 2013. > > 3. Resubmitting a Motion: Under review by the ISP and NCUC Constituencies. > > 4. SCI Charter Revisions: Continue discussions at the next meeting; Please review the suggested revisions that will be sent via separate message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu May 16 15:16:08 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:16:08 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you, Julie. Confirming that I will be on the call this coming Wednesday. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:28 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items Importance: High Dear SCI members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled. Our next meeting is rescheduled to Wednesday 22 May 2013. PLEASE RSVP FOR THE 22 MAY MEETING BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT WE WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT ATTENDANCE. Please also see below the actions and provide any comments or questions to the list. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Working Group Survey: Julie conferred with Rob Hoggarth and he suggested that Ken Bour could be asked to redesign the survey. Julie conferred with J.Scott and he agreed that this would be a good idea. Ken has produced a number of surveys for the GNSO and has expertise in this area. If there are no objections from the SCI Julie will contact Ken to request his assistance. 2. Termination/Suspension of a PDP: Wolf-Ulrich sent a motion and redlined document to the GNSO Council to consider at its meeting on 16 May 2013. 3. Resubmitting a Motion: Under review by the ISP and NCUC Constituencies. 4. SCI Charter Revisions: Continue discussions at the next meeting; Please review the suggested revisions that will be sent via separate message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Thu May 16 15:45:44 2013 From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:45:44 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5194C6E80200005B000A9869@smtp.law.unh.edu> Me too, thanks Julie and co. 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: "Ron Andruff" To: "'Julie Hedlund'" , Date: 5/16/2013 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items Thank you, Julie. Confirming that I will be on the call this coming Wednesday. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ( http://www.rnapartners.com ) From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:28 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] PLEASE RSVP for 22 May SCI Meeting and Note Action Items Importance: High Dear SCI members, Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled. Our next meeting is rescheduled to Wednesday 22 May 2013. PLEASE RSVP FOR THE 22 MAY MEETING BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT WE WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT ATTENDANCE. Please also see below the actions and provide any comments or questions to the list. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions: 1. Working Group Survey: Julie conferred with Rob Hoggarth and he suggested that Ken Bour could be asked to redesign the survey. Julie conferred with J.Scott and he agreed that this would be a good idea. Ken has produced a number of surveys for the GNSO and has expertise in this area. If there are no objections from the SCI Julie will contact Ken to request his assistance. 2. Termination/Suspension of a PDP: Wolf-Ulrich sent a motion and redlined document to the GNSO Council to consider at its meeting on 16 May 2013. 3. Resubmitting a Motion: Under review by the ISP and NCUC Constituencies. 4. SCI Charter Revisions: Continue discussions at the next meeting; Please review the suggested revisions that will be sent via separate message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon May 20 19:10:26 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:10:26 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Personal Message to SCI Members Meeting Invitation: - 22 May 2013 at 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Committee Members, I am writing to you today as your Chair of the SCI because we have had to cancel the last two SCI calls due to the fact that we have not had enough members dial in to discuss our Charter revisions amongst other matters currently on the SCI work list. As you all know, each stakeholder group/ constituency has two members of record. The entire list of SCI members and alternates is noted here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/4.+Members . All of the members of the SCI who do attend our regular calls, ICANN support staff, your Chair and Vice Chair would be very grateful if those who are missing the calls could work out between your primary and your alternate, which of the two of you (or better both of you) will attend our upcoming Wednesday call so that we can do the work that we have been charged to do. If, for any reason you cannot continue as a member of the SCI, please have your constituency provide us with your replacement so that the work can go on. Julie sent out a strong reminder last week for our call this Wednesday - with a specific request to RSVP - however we have yet to hear a response from any representatives of the Registry and Registrar constituencies. Please confirm to Julie or advise us of a replacement at your soonest convenience. Thank you for your consideration of the requests noted herein. On the behalf of the SCI, RA Chairman Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrlaw.com Mon May 20 19:28:06 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 19:28:06 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Personal Message to SCI Members Meeting Invitation: - 22 May 2013 at 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973B913E1@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Ron, As mentioned, I cannot attend due to our son's college graduation and as yet, there is no IPC alternate to my knowledge. I personally have been present and ready to participate in the last two calls when meetings were cancelled. Anne [cid:276012719 at 20052013-2186]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: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:10 PM To: 'SCI List' Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Personal Message to SCI Members Meeting Invitation: - 22 May 2013 at 20:00 UTC Importance: High Dear Committee Members, I am writing to you today as your Chair of the SCI because we have had to cancel the last two SCI calls due to the fact that we have not had enough members dial in to discuss our Charter revisions amongst other matters currently on the SCI work list. As you all know, each stakeholder group/ constituency has two members of record. The entire list of SCI members and alternates is noted here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/4.+Members . All of the members of the SCI who do attend our regular calls, ICANN support staff, your Chair and Vice Chair would be very grateful if those who are missing the calls could work out between your primary and your alternate, which of the two of you (or better both of you) will attend our upcoming Wednesday call so that we can do the work that we have been charged to do. If, for any reason you cannot continue as a member of the SCI, please have your constituency provide us with your replacement so that the work can go on. Julie sent out a strong reminder last week for our call this Wednesday ? with a specific request to RSVP ? however we have yet to hear a response from any representatives of the Registry and Registrar constituencies. Please confirm to Julie or advise us of a replacement at your soonest convenience. Thank you for your consideration of the requests noted herein. On the behalf of the SCI, RA Chairman Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ 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 avri at acm.org Mon May 20 20:20:46 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:20:46 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Personal Message to SCI Members Meeting Invitation: - 22 May 2013 at 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I do not expect that I can make it. I do think that we may be meeting much more frequently than is needed. I would recommend meeting monthly. avri On 20 May 2013, at 21:10, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Committee Members, > > I am writing to you today as your Chair of the SCI because we have had to cancel the last two SCI calls due to the fact that we have not had enough members dial in to discuss our Charter revisions amongst other matters currently on the SCI work list. As you all know, each stakeholder group/ constituency has two members of record. The entire list of SCI members and alternates is noted here:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/4.+Members . > > All of the members of the SCI who do attend our regular calls, ICANN support staff, your Chair and Vice Chair would be very grateful if those who are missing the calls could work out between your primary and your alternate, which of the two of you (or better both of you) will attend our upcoming Wednesday call so that we can do the work that we have been charged to do. If, for any reason you cannot continue as a member of the SCI, please have your constituency provide us with your replacement so that the work can go on. > > Julie sent out a strong reminder last week for our call this Wednesday ? with a specific request to RSVP ? however we have yet to hear a response from any representatives of the Registry and Registrar constituencies. Please confirm to Julie or advise us of a replacement at your soonest convenience. > > Thank you for your consideration of the requests noted herein. > > On the behalf of the SCI, > > RA > > Chairman > > > > Ronald N. Andruff > RNA Partners, Inc. From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed May 22 18:59:59 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:59:59 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER For Discussion: SCI Charter Draft Revision In-Reply-To: Message-ID: All, The SCI Charter Drafting Team (J.Scott, Angie, Avri, Wolf-Ulrich, and James) presented the attached proposed revision of the SCI Charter for discussion at the SCI meeting in Beijing. This also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/15+May+2013 under the sub header "For Review." Please review the latest draft for discussion at our next meeting, today, Wednesday, 22 May at 2000 UTC/1600 EDT/1300 PDT. 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 - CharterReviewTeamv2-130328 .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 27312 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 May 22 20:45:51 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:45:51 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, This is a reminder of the action item on re-submitting a motion. The action item is as follows: -- Re-Submitting a Motion -- SCI members: Circulate the options to their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. It is our understanding that we still need to hear from the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Registrar Stakeholder Group. All of the other representatives on the SCI support option 2 below with all the criteria. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 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. -------------- 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 Wed May 22 21:17:12 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:17:12 -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. Our next meeting will be in two weeks (the week of June 3rd) as determined by a Doodle poll that the GNSO Secretariat staff is developing and will send to the list. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes / Actions: 1. SCI Charter Revision -- Keep on the agenda for the next meeting; staff will send a revised version with the "full consensus" change noted. 2. Resubmitting a Motion -- James Bladel will send it to the Registrar Stakeholder Group for consideration; Also need to hear from Anne E. Aikman-Scalese concerning the determination by the Intellectual Property Constituency. All other SCI representatives have indicated that their groups support option 2. (See separate message on this item.) 3. Working Group Guidelines/Working Group Self Assessment -- Ken will circulate a paragraph providing background to the suggestion to incorporate the questions into Working Group Self Assessment. 4. Meeting Time/Schedule -- Staff will send out a Doodle to pick a regular meeting schedule -- including the current time slot. The suggestion is to meet in two weeks to finish the work on the Charter and re-submitting a motion, then move to a monthly schedule. -------------- 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 Wed May 22 21:27:47 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:27:47 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013 Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 22 May 2013. The change from today's 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. 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 two weeks as per the Doodle. 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 julia.charvolen at icann.org Wed May 22 22:16:15 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 15:16:15 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 22 May 2013 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held in two weeks (the week of 3rd June), time will be determined by the Doodle poll that will be sent to the list shortly. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130522-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mar (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: James Bladel ? Registrar Stakeholder Group ? Primary Jennifer Standiford - Registrar Stakeholder Group ? Alternate 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 Avri Doria ? Non Commercial SG ? Primary ? Vice-Chair Mary Wong ? NCUC ? Primary Jennifer Wolfe ? NCA primary Ken Bour ? guest speaker Apologies : Anne Aikman-Scalese ? IPC Primary ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 22 May 2013: Julia Charvolen:Angie Graves and Ray Fassett have joined the call Julia Charvolen:Mary Wong and Wolf Ulrich Knoben have joined the call Julia Charvolen:Jennifer Standiford joined the meeting Avri Doria:back Mary Wong:Actually, I wasn't on the Charter Redrafting Subcommittee. Jennifer Wolfe:I agree with Avri. I apologize I have to leave Adobe Connect, but will continue to be on my cell in my car. Julie Hedlund:Thanks Jennifer. Noted. Mary Wong:Me too. I'm particularly struck by the fact that we're not a WG and have a different function. Bladel:Are we inserting "Full Consensus" or removing it in favor of "Standard WG Rules" Mary Wong:@James, "full consensus as defined by the WG Rules". Julie Hedlund:I think Avri was suggesting substituting full consensus for the Standard WG Rules Avri Doria:no it was becasue we required fgull consensus. Avri Doria:exactly. Mike O'Connor:i think she's setting the bar higher Avri Doria:yes that is what i am sayon this group should only use full consensus. Mike O'Connor:full consensus per WG rules? Mike O'Connor:or unanymous? Avri Doria:yes, it used to be full consensus and that is what i think it should remian. Julia Charvolen:Please mute your line if you are not speaking Avri Doria:ful consensus == unanimity Mary Wong:@Mikey, yes, Full Consensus would have the same meaning as for a WG. Julie Hedlund:As defined in the WG standard methodology as: ? Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.? Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. Julie Hedlund:Sorry -- I pasted it twice Bladel:Full Consensus = No Objections. Mike O'Connor:ah. thanks Avri Doria:exactly Bladel:Kinda how the GAC does business. Avri Doria:yes Mike O'Connor:what is our current standard of consensus? full consensus? Ron A:@ Mikey: Yes, full is our current standard Avri Doria:i do not approve of the way this meeting is being maniopulated Mike O'Connor:i agree with Avri on both counts -- full consensus, and follow the queue Ron A:We have only 8 minutes left in this part and I would like to have a broad discussion of all members Mike O'Connor:yikes. fell off the call Mike O'Connor:i'm with Avri. back in a minute Julia Charvolen:Mike do you wish the operator to dial out to you? Mike O'Connor:naw -- an elephant stepped on my phone. Julia Charvolen:Mike is back in Mike O'Connor:does the IPC have representation on the SCI right now? do we have to wait for that, before acting on anything? Bladel:Can I request that Staff re=send the two options & the 4 criteria? Ron A:IPC has 2 reps, but J Scott just resigned. Anne is at her son's grad. Mike O'Connor:thx Ron A:IPC had not yet taken their members' temp on this issue Mike O'Connor:a little closer to the mic should do the trick Ken Mary Wong:Agree with Mikey. Mike O'Connor:i'd wait a month -- so we can get Ken's stuff too Mike O'Connor:which way are we voting w/agree/disagree? Bladel:Mikey: Agree, going forward monthly, but lets' have one more "reboot" meeting. Avri Doria:prefer monthly Mike O'Connor:that's fine. Ken, can you get some of your stuff out in time for that meeting too? Bladel:close the charter, etc. but the SOP would be monthly after that. Avri Doria:had sound go out during the'vote' Mike O'Connor:your sound just dropped again Avri Avri Doria:never mind. Avri Doria:ok Julie Hedlund:The suggestion is two weeks and then to a monthly schedule. Avri Doria:thanks Bladel:bingo Avri Doria:cheers Mary Wong:Thx Ron, Julie, everyone! Mike O'Connor:hasty lumbago Bladel:Thanks. Angie Graves 2:Thank you Julie Hedlund:Thank you everyone! Wolf Knoben:Thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ken.bour at verizon.net Wed May 22 22:31:32 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:31:32 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessments Message-ID: <015f01ce573c$1cf251a0$56d6f4e0$@verizon.net> Dear SCI Members: I appreciated the opportunity to attend your teleconference this afternoon and to present an alternative approach to the "survey" you have been contemplating. As requested, this memo is a summary of the points I outlined for your consideration. Background As some of you may recall, I was the original drafter of the WG Guidelines and Charter Template and provided Staff support to the Working Group Work Team during its first year or so. One of the concepts we engineered into the framework was that Chartering Organizations would ask each WG to perform a self-assessment at the end of its life-cycle. The idea was to promote a critical examination of the processes/procedures such that the feedback could be incorporated into a continuous improvement of the WG Guidelines. After consulting with Julie Hedlund and Rob Hoggarth, I reviewed the current version of the WG Guidelines (ANNEX 1 of the GOP) and noticed that, indeed, vestiges of the self-assessment concept are still present in the document. In particular, please see the following sections: Section 5.0 Products & Outputs The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the Charter such as a report, recommendations, guidelines, self-assessment or defined by the process under which the WG operates (e.g., Policy Development Process). . Self-Assessment Template (TBD) 6.2 Working Group Charter Template 6.2.4.4 Closure and Working Group Self-Assessment This section of the Charter should describe any instructions for WG final closure including any feedback and/or self-assessment that is requested by the Chartering organization. This section might also indicate if there is any specific format, template, or prescribed manner in which the feedback is to be provided. I have been away from this subject for more than a year, but it appears as though no Chartering Organization has yet asked a WG to generate a self-assessment. Perhaps one reason is that the original template work was never completed. One option that the SCI may wish to consider is to suspend the development of a one-time online survey and, instead, convert the questions (after some refinement) into a semi-permanent "WG Self-Assessment Template," which could be incorporated into the WG Guidelines (as was originally intended) and completed by all WGs (individually and/or collectively) as part of their closure process. I see several advantages to this approach: 1) Feedback would come from actual and recent WG participants (targeted audience). 2) The information collected should be fresh given that the group recently completed its work (salience). 3) If the self-assessment template is reviewed (Chair checklist item?) with team members the start of deliberations (revealing questions that will be asked at the end) and something occurs that uncovers a gap or error in the guidelines, the WG could note it for later inclusion in the self-assessment. 4) Unlike a static survey, incorporating a self-assessment instrument into each WG's process provides a dynamic catalyst for continuous improvement. 5) If the Chartering Organization (e.g., GNSO Council) determines, based upon feedback from one or more WG self-assessments, that the guidelines (or even the self-assessment template itself) need to be amended for any reason, it can direct Staff or another community team to address any deficiencies or issues uncovered. Thinking about this concept further and picking up on Mikey's comment about the learning objectives, my recommendation would be to broaden the self-assessment to ask not just about the WG Guidelines document, but the quality and effectiveness of other important success factors. If the SCI concurs, I would be willing to assemble an initial draft of a WG Self-Assessment Template that would attempt to assess the usefulness and effectiveness of: 1) Support Infrastructure . charter, procedures, tools/templates, and mechanics supporting the WG's operations; 2) WG Processes/Operations . leadership, norms, decision-making (consensus), and outputs. That sounds like a lot of content, but I believe any resulting template should be designed so that it is (a) simple/straightforward to complete (perhaps employing the ICANN Wiki capability?) and (b) respectful of respondents' time (length). I look forward to your comments via the SCI email list. Respectfully, Ken Bour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Thu May 23 12:25:02 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 07:25:02 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessments In-Reply-To: <015f01ce573c$1cf251a0$56d6f4e0$@verizon.net> References: <015f01ce573c$1cf251a0$56d6f4e0$@verizon.net> Message-ID: <66033E9F-3A54-4186-A8F2-A0F266694884@haven2.com> hi Kan, thanks for joining us, and thanks for your thoughts on moving forward. as i mentioned on the call, i'm quite keen on this approach. one of the things i've been fussing about recently is the need to beef up the resources and attention devoted to working groups (the bottom of the bottom-up process). i think most of you have seen my rant about this topic in one place or another already, but here's a link to it to get it into the SCI conversation. http://bar.com/w one of my strongest interests is trying to figure out ways to build a deeper "bench" of working group participants and leaders. i think that a good self-assessment process for WGs could provide a lot of help in showing people what goes on in WGs, where we need to beef up the preparation new-participants get, what kinds of coaching and assistance Chairs could use, etc. the "art" in all this is to avoid accidentally creating structures that drive bad behavior. the old adage "that which gets measured gets done" applies here -- and we've all seen the strange effects that can inadvertently fall out of ill-chosen metrics. for example, there's currently a lot of interest in driving "on-time" into the WG process. a good metric in many cases -- but tricky to apply correctly in a consensus-based decision-making process. that's another reason i like where this is going. i can't think of a better person to work on this effort than you, Ken. it's great to have the combination of your process-improvement expertise and your deep understanding of what ICANN, the GNSO and the PDP process are all about. i'm really looking forward to working with you on this. mikey On May 22, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Ken Bour wrote: > Dear SCI Members: > > I appreciated the opportunity to attend your teleconference this afternoon and to present an alternative approach to the ?survey? you have been contemplating. As requested, this memo is a summary of the points I outlined for your consideration. > > Background > As some of you may recall, I was the original drafter of the WG Guidelines and Charter Template and provided Staff support to the Working Group Work Team during its first year or so. One of the concepts we engineered into the framework was that Chartering Organizations would ask each WG to perform a self-assessment at the end of its life-cycle. The idea was to promote a critical examination of the processes/procedures such that the feedback could be incorporated into a continuous improvement of the WG Guidelines. > > After consulting with Julie Hedlund and Rob Hoggarth, I reviewed the current version of the WG Guidelines (ANNEX 1 of the GOP) and noticed that, indeed, vestiges of the self-assessment concept are still present in the document. In particular, please see the following sections: > > Section 5.0 Products & Outputs > The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the Charter such as a report, recommendations, guidelines, self-assessment or defined by the process under which the WG operates (e.g., Policy Development Process). > ? Self-Assessment Template (TBD) > > 6.2 Working Group Charter Template > 6.2.4.4 Closure and Working Group Self-Assessment > This section of the Charter should describe any instructions for WG final closure including any feedback and/or self-assessment that is requested by the Chartering organization. This section might also indicate if there is any specific format, template, or prescribed manner in which the feedback is to be provided. > > I have been away from this subject for more than a year, but it appears as though no Chartering Organization has yet asked a WG to generate a self-assessment. Perhaps one reason is that the original template work was never completed. > > One option that the SCI may wish to consider is to suspend the development of a one-time online survey and, instead, convert the questions (after some refinement) into a semi-permanent ?WG Self-Assessment Template,? which could be incorporated into the WG Guidelines (as was originally intended) and completed by all WGs (individually and/or collectively) as part of their closure process. I see several advantages to this approach: > 1) Feedback would come from actual and recent WG participants (targeted audience). > 2) The information collected should be fresh given that the group recently completed its work (salience). > 3) If the self-assessment template is reviewed (Chair checklist item?) with team members the start of deliberations (revealing questions that will be asked at the end) and something occurs that uncovers a gap or error in the guidelines, the WG could note it for later inclusion in the self-assessment. > 4) Unlike a static survey, incorporating a self-assessment instrument into each WG?s process provides a dynamic catalyst for continuous improvement. > 5) If the Chartering Organization (e.g., GNSO Council) determines, based upon feedback from one or more WG self-assessments, that the guidelines (or even the self-assessment template itself) need to be amended for any reason, it can direct Staff or another community team to address any deficiencies or issues uncovered. > > Thinking about this concept further and picking up on Mikey?s comment about the learning objectives, my recommendation would be to broaden the self-assessment to ask not just about the WG Guidelines document, but the quality and effectiveness of other important success factors. If the SCI concurs, I would be willing to assemble an initial draft of a WG Self-Assessment Template that would attempt to assess the usefulness and effectiveness of: > 1) Support Infrastructure ? charter, procedures, tools/templates, and mechanics supporting the WG?s operations; > 2) WG Processes/Operations ? leadership, norms, decision-making (consensus), and outputs. > > That sounds like a lot of content, but I believe any resulting template should be designed so that it is (a) simple/straightforward to complete (perhaps employing the ICANN Wiki capability?) and (b) respectful of respondents? time (length). > > I look forward to your comments via the SCI email list. > > Respectfully, > > 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 Thu May 23 12:31:45 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 07:31:45 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessments In-Reply-To: <66033E9F-3A54-4186-A8F2-A0F266694884@haven2.com> References: <015f01ce573c$1cf251a0$56d6f4e0$@verizon.net> <66033E9F-3A54-4186-A8F2-A0F266694884@haven2.com> Message-ID: er?. "Ken", not "Kan"? sorry about that. On May 23, 2013, at 7:25 AM, "Mike O'Connor" wrote: > hi Kan, > > thanks for joining us, and thanks for your thoughts on moving forward. as i mentioned on the call, i'm quite keen on this approach. one of the things i've been fussing about recently is the need to beef up the resources and attention devoted to working groups (the bottom of the bottom-up process). i think most of you have seen my rant about this topic in one place or another already, but here's a link to it to get it into the SCI conversation. > > http://bar.com/w > > one of my strongest interests is trying to figure out ways to build a deeper "bench" of working group participants and leaders. i think that a good self-assessment process for WGs could provide a lot of help in showing people what goes on in WGs, where we need to beef up the preparation new-participants get, what kinds of coaching and assistance Chairs could use, etc. > > the "art" in all this is to avoid accidentally creating structures that drive bad behavior. the old adage "that which gets measured gets done" applies here -- and we've all seen the strange effects that can inadvertently fall out of ill-chosen metrics. for example, there's currently a lot of interest in driving "on-time" into the WG process. a good metric in many cases -- but tricky to apply correctly in a consensus-based decision-making process. > > that's another reason i like where this is going. i can't think of a better person to work on this effort than you, Ken. it's great to have the combination of your process-improvement expertise and your deep understanding of what ICANN, the GNSO and the PDP process are all about. i'm really looking forward to working with you on this. > > mikey > > > On May 22, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Ken Bour wrote: > >> Dear SCI Members: >> >> I appreciated the opportunity to attend your teleconference this afternoon and to present an alternative approach to the ?survey? you have been contemplating. As requested, this memo is a summary of the points I outlined for your consideration. >> >> Background >> As some of you may recall, I was the original drafter of the WG Guidelines and Charter Template and provided Staff support to the Working Group Work Team during its first year or so. One of the concepts we engineered into the framework was that Chartering Organizations would ask each WG to perform a self-assessment at the end of its life-cycle. The idea was to promote a critical examination of the processes/procedures such that the feedback could be incorporated into a continuous improvement of the WG Guidelines. >> >> After consulting with Julie Hedlund and Rob Hoggarth, I reviewed the current version of the WG Guidelines (ANNEX 1 of the GOP) and noticed that, indeed, vestiges of the self-assessment concept are still present in the document. In particular, please see the following sections: >> >> Section 5.0 Products & Outputs >> The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the Charter such as a report, recommendations, guidelines, self-assessment or defined by the process under which the WG operates (e.g., Policy Development Process). >> ? Self-Assessment Template (TBD) >> >> 6.2 Working Group Charter Template >> 6.2.4.4 Closure and Working Group Self-Assessment >> This section of the Charter should describe any instructions for WG final closure including any feedback and/or self-assessment that is requested by the Chartering organization. This section might also indicate if there is any specific format, template, or prescribed manner in which the feedback is to be provided. >> >> I have been away from this subject for more than a year, but it appears as though no Chartering Organization has yet asked a WG to generate a self-assessment. Perhaps one reason is that the original template work was never completed. >> >> One option that the SCI may wish to consider is to suspend the development of a one-time online survey and, instead, convert the questions (after some refinement) into a semi-permanent ?WG Self-Assessment Template,? which could be incorporated into the WG Guidelines (as was originally intended) and completed by all WGs (individually and/or collectively) as part of their closure process. I see several advantages to this approach: >> 1) Feedback would come from actual and recent WG participants (targeted audience). >> 2) The information collected should be fresh given that the group recently completed its work (salience). >> 3) If the self-assessment template is reviewed (Chair checklist item?) with team members the start of deliberations (revealing questions that will be asked at the end) and something occurs that uncovers a gap or error in the guidelines, the WG could note it for later inclusion in the self-assessment. >> 4) Unlike a static survey, incorporating a self-assessment instrument into each WG?s process provides a dynamic catalyst for continuous improvement. >> 5) If the Chartering Organization (e.g., GNSO Council) determines, based upon feedback from one or more WG self-assessments, that the guidelines (or even the self-assessment template itself) need to be amended for any reason, it can direct Staff or another community team to address any deficiencies or issues uncovered. >> >> Thinking about this concept further and picking up on Mikey?s comment about the learning objectives, my recommendation would be to broaden the self-assessment to ask not just about the WG Guidelines document, but the quality and effectiveness of other important success factors. If the SCI concurs, I would be willing to assemble an initial draft of a WG Self-Assessment Template that would attempt to assess the usefulness and effectiveness of: >> 1) Support Infrastructure ? charter, procedures, tools/templates, and mechanics supporting the WG?s operations; >> 2) WG Processes/Operations ? leadership, norms, decision-making (consensus), and outputs. >> >> That sounds like a lot of content, but I believe any resulting template should be designed so that it is (a) simple/straightforward to complete (perhaps employing the ICANN Wiki capability?) and (b) respectful of respondents? time (length). >> >> I look forward to your comments via the SCI email list. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Ken Bour >> > > > 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 ken.bour at verizon.net Thu May 23 15:04:49 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:04:49 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessments In-Reply-To: <66033E9F-3A54-4186-A8F2-A0F266694884@haven2.com> References: <015f01ce573c$1cf251a0$56d6f4e0$@verizon.net> <66033E9F-3A54-4186-A8F2-A0F266694884@haven2.com> Message-ID: <004501ce57c6$e0081410$a0183c30$@verizon.net> Mikey: Thank you for your feedback and kind endorsements. I am particularly supportive of your penultimate paragraph and the unintended side-effects that almost invariably occur when performance measurements (metrics) are instituted. I am fond of another adage that applies here, "Be careful not to reward A while hoping for B!" On the other hand, the collection and dissemination of qualitative feedback, especially when the objective is purely improvement toward excellence, can be immensely informative and valuable. If the SCI's will is that I remain involved with this effort, that would be my overriding goal in developing a WG Self-Assessment instrument. Regards, 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: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:25 AM To: Ken Bour Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Julie Hedlund; Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); 'Marika Konings' Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessments hi Kan, thanks for joining us, and thanks for your thoughts on moving forward. as i mentioned on the call, i'm quite keen on this approach. one of the things i've been fussing about recently is the need to beef up the resources and attention devoted to working groups (the bottom of the bottom-up process). i think most of you have seen my rant about this topic in one place or another already, but here's a link to it to get it into the SCI conversation. http://bar.com/w one of my strongest interests is trying to figure out ways to build a deeper "bench" of working group participants and leaders. i think that a good self-assessment process for WGs could provide a lot of help in showing people what goes on in WGs, where we need to beef up the preparation new-participants get, what kinds of coaching and assistance Chairs could use, etc. the "art" in all this is to avoid accidentally creating structures that drive bad behavior. the old adage "that which gets measured gets done" applies here -- and we've all seen the strange effects that can inadvertently fall out of ill-chosen metrics. for example, there's currently a lot of interest in driving "on-time" into the WG process. a good metric in many cases -- but tricky to apply correctly in a consensus-based decision-making process. that's another reason i like where this is going. i can't think of a better person to work on this effort than you, Ken. it's great to have the combination of your process-improvement expertise and your deep understanding of what ICANN, the GNSO and the PDP process are all about. i'm really looking forward to working with you on this. mikey On May 22, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Ken Bour wrote: Dear SCI Members: I appreciated the opportunity to attend your teleconference this afternoon and to present an alternative approach to the "survey" you have been contemplating. As requested, this memo is a summary of the points I outlined for your consideration. Background As some of you may recall, I was the original drafter of the WG Guidelines and Charter Template and provided Staff support to the Working Group Work Team during its first year or so. One of the concepts we engineered into the framework was that Chartering Organizations would ask each WG to perform a self-assessment at the end of its life-cycle. The idea was to promote a critical examination of the processes/procedures such that the feedback could be incorporated into a continuous improvement of the WG Guidelines. After consulting with Julie Hedlund and Rob Hoggarth, I reviewed the current version of the WG Guidelines (ANNEX 1 of the GOP) and noticed that, indeed, vestiges of the self-assessment concept are still present in the document. In particular, please see the following sections: Section 5.0 Products & Outputs The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the Charter such as a report, recommendations, guidelines, self-assessment or defined by the process under which the WG operates (e.g., Policy Development Process). . Self-Assessment Template (TBD) 6.2 Working Group Charter Template 6.2.4.4 Closure and Working Group Self-Assessment This section of the Charter should describe any instructions for WG final closure including any feedback and/or self-assessment that is requested by the Chartering organization. This section might also indicate if there is any specific format, template, or prescribed manner in which the feedback is to be provided. I have been away from this subject for more than a year, but it appears as though no Chartering Organization has yet asked a WG to generate a self-assessment. Perhaps one reason is that the original template work was never completed. One option that the SCI may wish to consider is to suspend the development of a one-time online survey and, instead, convert the questions (after some refinement) into a semi-permanent "WG Self-Assessment Template," which could be incorporated into the WG Guidelines (as was originally intended) and completed by all WGs (individually and/or collectively) as part of their closure process. I see several advantages to this approach: 1) Feedback would come from actual and recent WG participants (targeted audience). 2) The information collected should be fresh given that the group recently completed its work (salience). 3) If the self-assessment template is reviewed (Chair checklist item?) with team members the start of deliberations (revealing questions that will be asked at the end) and something occurs that uncovers a gap or error in the guidelines, the WG could note it for later inclusion in the self-assessment. 4) Unlike a static survey, incorporating a self-assessment instrument into each WG's process provides a dynamic catalyst for continuous improvement. 5) If the Chartering Organization (e.g., GNSO Council) determines, based upon feedback from one or more WG self-assessments, that the guidelines (or even the self-assessment template itself) need to be amended for any reason, it can direct Staff or another community team to address any deficiencies or issues uncovered. Thinking about this concept further and picking up on Mikey's comment about the learning objectives, my recommendation would be to broaden the self-assessment to ask not just about the WG Guidelines document, but the quality and effectiveness of other important success factors. If the SCI concurs, I would be willing to assemble an initial draft of a WG Self-Assessment Template that would attempt to assess the usefulness and effectiveness of: 1) Support Infrastructure . charter, procedures, tools/templates, and mechanics supporting the WG's operations; 2) WG Processes/Operations . leadership, norms, decision-making (consensus), and outputs. That sounds like a lot of content, but I believe any resulting template should be designed so that it is (a) simple/straightforward to complete (perhaps employing the ICANN Wiki capability?) and (b) respectful of respondents' time (length). I look forward to your comments via the SCI email list. Respectfully, 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 julia.charvolen at icann.org Thu May 23 16:45:59 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:45:59 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Next SCI meeting - DOODLE POLL Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Following what has been said in yesterday's meeting, please complete the Doodle poll in order to pick a day and time for both the next meeting and a recurring time slot for a monthly meeting. http://doodle.com/ac6g4knhxs3d35bv This Doodle poll will close on Tuesday 28 May. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu May 23 18:30:30 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:30:30 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for June Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see below a proposed agenda for the meeting we are in the process of scheduling for June via a Doodle. This also is posted at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/June+2013+Meeting+--+TBD. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda for SCI June Meeting 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Charter Revision drafting team (25 mins) 5. Re-submitting a motion (10 mins) 7. Working Group Self Assessment (15 mins) 8. 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 Fri May 24 14:39:22 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:39:22 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessments In-Reply-To: <66033E9F-3A54-4186-A8F2-A0F266694884@haven2.com> Message-ID: <4A11A23862E54BE299D1DD5A02DA7291@ron> Ken, I would like to echo Mikey's sentiments. Having already worked with you in the past I am sure that we will find a fruitful end with this exercise. I also take advantage of this opportunity to offer best wishes to all those who are celebrating the long Memorial Day Weekend. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ 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, May 23, 2013 8:25 AM To: Ken Bour Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Julie Hedlund; Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); 'Marika Konings' Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessments hi Kan, thanks for joining us, and thanks for your thoughts on moving forward. as i mentioned on the call, i'm quite keen on this approach. one of the things i've been fussing about recently is the need to beef up the resources and attention devoted to working groups (the bottom of the bottom-up process). i think most of you have seen my rant about this topic in one place or another already, but here's a link to it to get it into the SCI conversation. http://bar.com/w one of my strongest interests is trying to figure out ways to build a deeper "bench" of working group participants and leaders. i think that a good self-assessment process for WGs could provide a lot of help in showing people what goes on in WGs, where we need to beef up the preparation new-participants get, what kinds of coaching and assistance Chairs could use, etc. the "art" in all this is to avoid accidentally creating structures that drive bad behavior. the old adage "that which gets measured gets done" applies here -- and we've all seen the strange effects that can inadvertently fall out of ill-chosen metrics. for example, there's currently a lot of interest in driving "on-time" into the WG process. a good metric in many cases -- but tricky to apply correctly in a consensus-based decision-making process. that's another reason i like where this is going. i can't think of a better person to work on this effort than you, Ken. it's great to have the combination of your process-improvement expertise and your deep understanding of what ICANN, the GNSO and the PDP process are all about. i'm really looking forward to working with you on this. mikey On May 22, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Ken Bour wrote: Dear SCI Members: I appreciated the opportunity to attend your teleconference this afternoon and to present an alternative approach to the "survey" you have been contemplating. As requested, this memo is a summary of the points I outlined for your consideration. Background As some of you may recall, I was the original drafter of the WG Guidelines and Charter Template and provided Staff support to the Working Group Work Team during its first year or so. One of the concepts we engineered into the framework was that Chartering Organizations would ask each WG to perform a self-assessment at the end of its life-cycle. The idea was to promote a critical examination of the processes/procedures such that the feedback could be incorporated into a continuous improvement of the WG Guidelines. After consulting with Julie Hedlund and Rob Hoggarth, I reviewed the current version of the WG Guidelines (ANNEX 1 of the GOP) and noticed that, indeed, vestiges of the self-assessment concept are still present in the document. In particular, please see the following sections: Section 5.0 Products & Outputs The products and outputs of a Working Group may be prescribed by the Charter such as a report, recommendations, guidelines, self-assessment or defined by the process under which the WG operates (e.g., Policy Development Process). * Self-Assessment Template (TBD) 6.2 Working Group Charter Template 6.2.4.4 Closure and Working Group Self-Assessment This section of the Charter should describe any instructions for WG final closure including any feedback and/or self-assessment that is requested by the Chartering organization. This section might also indicate if there is any specific format, template, or prescribed manner in which the feedback is to be provided. I have been away from this subject for more than a year, but it appears as though no Chartering Organization has yet asked a WG to generate a self-assessment. Perhaps one reason is that the original template work was never completed. One option that the SCI may wish to consider is to suspend the development of a one-time online survey and, instead, convert the questions (after some refinement) into a semi-permanent "WG Self-Assessment Template," which could be incorporated into the WG Guidelines (as was originally intended) and completed by all WGs (individually and/or collectively) as part of their closure process. I see several advantages to this approach: 1) Feedback would come from actual and recent WG participants (targeted audience). 2) The information collected should be fresh given that the group recently completed its work (salience). 3) If the self-assessment template is reviewed (Chair checklist item?) with team members the start of deliberations (revealing questions that will be asked at the end) and something occurs that uncovers a gap or error in the guidelines, the WG could note it for later inclusion in the self-assessment. 4) Unlike a static survey, incorporating a self-assessment instrument into each WG's process provides a dynamic catalyst for continuous improvement. 5) If the Chartering Organization (e.g., GNSO Council) determines, based upon feedback from one or more WG self-assessments, that the guidelines (or even the self-assessment template itself) need to be amended for any reason, it can direct Staff or another community team to address any deficiencies or issues uncovered. Thinking about this concept further and picking up on Mikey's comment about the learning objectives, my recommendation would be to broaden the self-assessment to ask not just about the WG Guidelines document, but the quality and effectiveness of other important success factors. If the SCI concurs, I would be willing to assemble an initial draft of a WG Self-Assessment Template that would attempt to assess the usefulness and effectiveness of: 1) Support Infrastructure . charter, procedures, tools/templates, and mechanics supporting the WG's operations; 2) WG Processes/Operations . leadership, norms, decision-making (consensus), and outputs. That sounds like a lot of content, but I believe any resulting template should be designed so that it is (a) simple/straightforward to complete (perhaps employing the ICANN Wiki capability?) and (b) respectful of respondents' time (length). I look forward to your comments via the SCI email list. Respectfully, 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 jbladel at godaddy.com Sun May 26 01:51:03 2013 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 01:51:03 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: Julie Hedlund > Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 15:45 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion Dear SCI members, This is a reminder of the action item on re-submitting a motion. The action item is as follows: -- Re-Submitting a Motion -- SCI members: Circulate the options to their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. It is our understanding that we still need to hear from the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Registrar Stakeholder Group. All of the other representatives on the SCI support option 2 below with all the criteria. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Sun May 26 07:12:53 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 09:12:53 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <970C0CCD-53BD-46F8-ADA1-E00860073BD8@acm.org> Hi, Good point about adding a rate limiting or repeat count requirement. avri On 26 May 2013, at 03:51, James M. Bladel wrote: > 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: Julie Hedlund > Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 15:45 > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion > > Dear SCI members, > > This is a reminder of the action item on re-submitting a motion. The action item is as follows: > > -- Re-Submitting a Motion -- SCI members: Circulate the options to their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. > > It is our understanding that we still need to hear from the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Registrar Stakeholder Group. All of the other representatives on the SCI support option 2 below with all the criteria. > > Best regards, > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: > > 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair > > 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 julia.charvolen at icann.org Mon May 27 08:39:45 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:39:45 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Next SCI meeting - DOODLE POLL Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Following what has been said in the last meeting, on Wednesday 22 May, please complete the Doodle poll in order to pick a day and time for both the next meeting and a recurring time slot for a monthly meeting. http://doodle.com/ac6g4knhxs3d35bv This Doodle poll will close on Tuesday 28 May. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julia.charvolen at icann.org Tue May 28 15:04:13 2013 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:04:13 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Next SCI meeting - DOODLE POLL Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Reminder: Please complete the doodle poll today so that we can schedule regular call for this group Following what has been said in the last meeting, on Wednesday 22 May, please complete the Doodle poll in order to pick a day and time for both the next meeting and a recurring time slot for a monthly meeting. http://doodle.com/ac6g4knhxs3d35bv Best regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue May 28 15:48:43 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:48:43 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <04F1651FA7F149AAB53576B32831159D@ron> Thank you James and Jennifer for the quick turnaround on this matter. As I understand it, the request for re-submitting a motion had never happened before the first occasion, which brought it to our table, but I agree that it would be for the Committee to discuss the idea of frequency to make sure we are all of like mind as to what this would mean. By way of this mail, I am asking Julie to be sure to include this in our next meeting. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ 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: Julie Hedlund Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 15:45 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion Dear SCI members, This is a reminder of the action item on re-submitting a motion. The action item is as follows: -- Re-Submitting a Motion -- SCI members: Circulate the options to their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. It is our understanding that we still need to hear from the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Registrar Stakeholder Group. All of the other representatives on the SCI support option 2 below with all the criteria. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue May 28 17:34:21 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 10:34:21 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: <04F1651FA7F149AAB53576B32831159D@ron> Message-ID: Thanks Ron. I can confirm that re-submitting a motion is an item on our agenda for our next meeting, which we are planning using a Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff Organization: RNA Partners Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:48 AM To: 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 Thank you James and Jennifer for the quick turnaround on this matter. As I understand it, the request for re-submitting a motion had never happened before the first occasion, which brought it to our table, but I agree that it would be for the Committee to discuss the idea of frequency to make sure we are all of like mind as to what this would mean. By way of this mail, I am asking Julie to be sure to include this in our next meeting. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 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: Julie Hedlund Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 15:45 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion Dear SCI members, This is a reminder of the action item on re-submitting a motion. The action item is as follows: -- Re-Submitting a Motion -- SCI members: Circulate the options to their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. It is our understanding that we still need to hear from the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Registrar Stakeholder Group. All of the other representatives on the SCI support option 2 below with all the criteria. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 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. -------------- 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 May 29 18:50:23 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:50:23 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BB72C5@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <7D20E465583C4354A44D3CE535E20EB2@ron> Thank you, Anne. We will take this up on our call this coming Tuesday. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:43 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'James M. 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 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, May 28, 2013 8:49 AM To: 'James M. 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 Thank you James and Jennifer for the quick turnaround on this matter. As I understand it, the request for re-submitting a motion had never happened before the first occasion, which brought it to our table, but I agree that it would be for the Committee to discuss the idea of frequency to make sure we are all of like mind as to what this would mean. By way of this mail, I am asking Julie to be sure to include this in our next meeting. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ 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: Julie Hedlund Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 15:45 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion Dear SCI members, This is a reminder of the action item on re-submitting a motion. The action item is as follows: -- Re-Submitting a Motion -- SCI members: Circulate the options to their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. It is our understanding that we still need to hear from the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Registrar Stakeholder Group. All of the other representatives on the SCI support option 2 below with all the criteria. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 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. _____ 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 May 29 18:42:35 2013 From: AAikman at lrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:35 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: <04F1651FA7F149AAB53576B32831159D@ron> References: <04F1651FA7F149AAB53576B32831159D@ron> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD973BB72C5@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> 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 [cid:548334018 at 29052013-21FF]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, May 28, 2013 8:49 AM To: 'James M. 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 Thank you James and Jennifer for the quick turnaround on this matter. As I understand it, the request for re-submitting a motion had never happened before the first occasion, which brought it to our table, but I agree that it would be for the Committee to discuss the idea of frequency to make sure we are all of like mind as to what this would mean. By way of this mail, I am asking Julie to be sure to include this in our next meeting. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ 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: Julie Hedlund > Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 15:45 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion Dear SCI members, This is a reminder of the action item on re-submitting a motion. The action item is as follows: -- Re-Submitting a Motion -- SCI members: Circulate the options to their Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. It is our understanding that we still need to hear from the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Registrar Stakeholder Group. All of the other representatives on the SCI support option 2 below with all the criteria. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 1. Leave up to discretion of the Chair 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. ________________________________ 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: