[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Fri Oct 18 14:57:10 UTC 2013


In order for the motion to be on the table for the meeting on the 31st it
must be submitted by Monday the 21st.  This does not preclude, however, the
Council from having the discussion on the methodology at the meeting on the
31st.  It just means that if the Council agrees on the methodology in its
discussion on the 31st it will also be able to approve the charter (revised
or not) also during that meeting.  The Charter can be revised (if necessary)
following that discussion and submitted for approval during the same

If the motion is not submitted by the motion deadline then the Council would
not be able to approve the charter on the 31st, but would have to wait until
the next meeting (Buenos Aires) to do so.

Best regards,

From:  Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
Date:  Friday, October 18, 2013 10:51 AM
To:  "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Cc:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions

Thank you, Julie, Wolf-Ulrich,
Having reviewed the motion, it appears to be in order with one caveat; I
believe that it is imperative that the GNSO Council come to a final
determination on the decision-making methodology before the motion is
introduced.  That may well be the intention and your understanding, but I
did want to flag that for clarity.  No point in voting on a Œhalf-baked
cake¹, as it were.
The SCI looks forward to hearing the outcome of the Council October 31st
Kind regards,

Ron Andruff
RNA Partners
www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 09:31
To: Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions

Dear Ron and SCI members,


Wolf-Ulrich has agreed to submit the attached motion for consideration by
the Council at its meeting on 31 October for approval of the charter.  At
its meeting the Council also will discuss the decision-making methodology,
so it is possible that the Council may revise the charter prior to its
approval.  I will update you on 31 October as to the outcome of the
discussion, and whether the charter is revised and/or approved.


Best regards,



Julie Hedlund, Policy Director


From: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:32 AM
To: "jrobinson at afilias.info" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>,
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions


Dear Jonathan,
As I noted below the SCI took up discussion of the charter revisions based
on the guidance provided by you and the Council in your message below.
Accordingly, the SCI has revised the charter per the guidance as follows:
1. It confirms that the SCI is a standing committee and;
2. It includes other changes the SCI deemed necessary including updating it
to reflect the current role of the SCI and to include procedures for Chair
and Vice Chair elections and;
3. It includes the original text concerning the decision-making methodology
and a note that the methodology is under consideration by the GNSO Council.
The SCI awaits Council¹s final determination in this regard.
Please let me know if you or the Councilors have questions concerning the
modified charter or need additional information.
Kind regards,

Ron Andruff
RNA Partners
www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 09:07
To: 'jrobinson at afilias.info'
Cc: 'council at gnso.icann.org'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org'
Subject: RE: SCI Charter Revisions
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you and the GNSO Council for providing the SCI with this way forward.
We will pick this up on our regularly scheduled call today.
Kind regards,

Ron Andruff
RNA Partners
www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 18:30
To: 'Ron Andruff'
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: SCI Charter Revisions
Dear Ron,
Thank-you again for this letter.  As you will no doubt by now be aware, the
Council did discuss the SCI and the important questions you have raised in
your communication below.
Essentially the Council agreed the following:
1.      That the Charter of the SCI should be modified to confirm that the
SCI is a standing committee and;
> 1. That the Council would like the SCI to undertake the work to propose the
> above and any other changes it deems necessary and then to submit these to the
> Council and;
> 2. That the SCI should not propose to modify the decision making methodology
> (away from full consensus) as the GNSO Council will consider this particular
> issue further.
> 3. Noting: That should the decision be made to move from full consensus in
> future, that should be a decision for the GNSO Council.
I trust that you will find this response and the associated guidance
In addition, please could you convey my thanks on behalf of the Council to
the SCI for their work to date and on-going contribution.
Best wishes,

Jonathan Robinson
jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103
skype: jonathan.m.r

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
Sent: 02 September 2013 03:44
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
Subject: SCI Charter Revisions
Importance: High
Dear Jonathan,
I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter
revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013.  At its
meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the
GNSO Sessions in Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful
to more formally seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next
steps for the SCI Charter.  One aspect, in particular, based on the
discussion in Durban, seems clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the
SCI to continue as a 'standing committee'. We would like the Charter to
reflect that, should that indeed be the case. (I refer you to the email on
this topic that I sent you on 08 July 2013, just prior to Durban.)
At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for
decision-making (Œfull consensus¹ versus Standard Methodology for Making
Decisions).  The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this
issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to
share their views in support of one or the other option.  We now understand
that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was
initially required to operate under full consensus.  At the SCI¹s August 6th
meeting and since then on our mailing list, members expressed an interest in
helping guide the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel
there should or should not be full consensus.
The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using ³full or unanimous
consensus² or ³rough or near consensus² came from my request, as in-coming
SCI Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki
since the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the
language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated.  I also noted at
the time, and do so here again for Council¹s edification, the SCI Charter is
further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within
the SCI came in two forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to
unanimous consensus ³improves our product² because it ensures that the
Committee dedicates the time to explore all points of view and works to find
stronger outcomes; the arguments against full consensus included concerns
about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive
outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through
decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need, or that any member
choosing to remain steadfast in opposition could capture the SCI process.
All SCI members however respect that balanced discussions result in
consensus ­ in some form ­ leading to better appreciation of each member¹s
contributions, more confidence in the Committee itself and in the process.
The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on
procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the
Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent
defined in the Guidelines, Œrough or near consent¹ (defined as ³a position
where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree²) immediately follows
Œfull or unanimous consent¹.  We are all aware of the ramifications of full
consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN¹s inception.  ŒNear
consensus¹, provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their
respective stakeholder group¹s position, while it also provides for written
rationale entered into the public record for any and all dissenting
opinion(s), thus providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it in
coming to its own determinations.  Notably, the SCI does not make any
determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council,
which it, in turn, discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems
On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform
your discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the
Council on the Charter and consensus issues, if so requested.
We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the
Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the
SCI Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its
determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this
task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate.
We await your guidance.
Kind regards,
Ron Andruff
SCI Chair
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners
www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20131018/849737a3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20131018/849737a3/smime.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc mailing list