From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Sep 2 07:44:26 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 03:44:26 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Charter Revisions Message-ID: <002d01cea7b0$456f0730$d04d1590$@rnapartners.com> 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 ('full consensus' 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 SCI's 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 "full or unanimous consensus" or "rough or near consensus" 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the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated.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 Council's 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 "improves our product" 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 member's 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, 'rough or near consent' (defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows 'full or unanimous consent'. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN's inception. 'Near consensus', provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group's 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 appropriate. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrobinson at afilias.info Mon Sep 2 07:50:24 2013 From: jrobinson at afilias.info (Jonathan Robinson) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 08:50:24 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions In-Reply-To: <002d01cea7b0$456f0730$d04d1590$@rnapartners.com> References: <002d01cea7b0$456f0730$d04d1590$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <00c001cea7b1$153e0880$3fba1980$@afilias.info> Dear Ron, Thank-you for this. I will forward to the Council immediately and bring it to their attention as material to inform our planned discussion on Thursday this week. Best wishes, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: 02 September 2013 08:44 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 ('full consensus' 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 SCI's 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 "full or unanimous consensus" or "rough or near consensus" 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 Council's 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 "improves our product" 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 member's 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, 'rough or near consent' (defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows 'full or unanimous consent'. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN's inception. 'Near consensus', provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group's 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 appropriate. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Sep 2 07:50:31 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 03:50:31 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9869AADBF@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> References: <00a801cea418$ab8a48e0$029edaa0$@rnapartners.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9869AADBF@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <003801cea7b1$1d0e9cf0$572bd6d0$@rnapartners.com> Anne, I understand your concern, but it is clear that the Council supports our desire to have a new Charter, and Wolf-Ulrich (as V Chair of Council) notes that they do not wish to take on the work, but the GNSO Council is our chartering organization so I feel that it is their choice as to how we proceed. I expect that we will know that direction following their meeting this week. In any case, should the Council choose to do this work on their side, we have enough work to do in the meantime. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 14:19 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Nuno Garcia' Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Ron, the letter seems good except that it appears to me SCI can work on the Charter revisions, which are almost done as I understand it, without waiting for the GNSO to determine where it stands on the full consensus issue. The last paragraph seems to imply that SCI will wait to do this work until after GNSO advises the appropriate level of consensus for SCI. I personally do not see why we would wait on this. We can leave this section open in the revised Charter. I would expect discussion beyond the upcoming Council meeting on the consensus issue and I am loathe to stop our Charter revision work when it is clear that GNSO wants SCI to continue and there is no dispute on this point. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02 AM To: 'Nuno Garcia'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Dear all, Welcome Nuno, and thank you for your comments on this thread. I, too, feel that providing more background to the Council would serve both them and the SCI, and have thus drafted a revised letter to Jonathan, which I have attached and pasted below for your review. I have taken into account both Anne and Jennifer?s comments and hopefully captured that which they, and Wolf-Ulrich, are looking for. Recognizing time is short, I welcome your soonest comments/amendments. Thank you in advance for your soonest response. Kind regards, RA Subject: SCI Charter Revision 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. At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for decision-making (?full consensus? 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 SCI?s 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 ?full or unanimous consensus? or ?rough or near consensus? 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 Council?s 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 ?improves our product? 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 member?s 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, ?rough or near consent? (defined as ?a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree?) immediately follows ?full or unanimous consent?. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN?s inception. ?Near consensus?, provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group?s 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 coming to its own determinations. Notably, the SCI does not make any determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council, which, in turn, it discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems appropriate. 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 Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nuno Garcia Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 06:03 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: WUKnoben; Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi all. I'm new do SCI, so I'm still catching up on things. I also agree on the approach proposed by previous emails. I would also like to add something to the discussion: proposals submitted in a full consensus framework are likely to be different from proposals submitted in a WG model framework. This is, if the SCI chooses to change the approval method to the WG model, we can expect different types of subjects being presented. Warm regards, Nuno M. Garcia, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, UBI, Covilh?, Portugal Invited Associate Professor, ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal Av. da Anil, n? 2, 1? Esq. 6200-502 Covilh? Portugal mobile: +351 912 552 009 Skype: nunomgarcia web .................: http://www.di.ubi.pt/~ngarcia research lab .....: http://allab.it.ubi.pt Cisco Academy : http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt On 28 August 2013 08:50, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: I agree with Wolf Ulrich and Jennifer regarding this. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:45 AM To: Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role I?d support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council members? understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM To: Ron Andruff ; 'WUKnoben' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi everyone, I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am looking forward to our call next week. I agree it is appropriate to send a letter to Jonathan regarding the SCI?s position in order to best frame the discussion during the GNSO call. My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt there should or shouldn?t be full consensus to help guide the discussion for the Council. For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus was that it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points of view and work to find stronger outcomes. The SCI has the luxury of not working under any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather than substantive issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the group more time to really find a better outcome. On the flip side, I believe the argument 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. This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned that if we don?t provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon our meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent discussing this issue. I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI. With kindest regards, Jennifer jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired 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, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM To: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Dear All, Based upon Wolf-Ulrich?s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) Anne?s contribution. Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter 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 Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus 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 August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the ?full consensus? process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The ?historical? information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method ? WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself ? the SCI as an ongoing working institution ? was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. _____ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3225 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Sep 3 13:51:48 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 06:51:48 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed Agenda for 10 September SCI Meeting Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Below for your review is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting on 10 September. Please let me know of any changes. This also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/10+September+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Re-submitting a motion (10 mins) 5. SCI charter revision (20 mins) 6. Working Group self assessment (10 mins) 7. New Work Items from GNSO Council: Voting by email and the possible inclusion of a waiver/exception in the GNSO Operating Procedures (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 Wed Sep 4 16:40:08 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:40:08 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Message-ID: Dear Anne, No work will go to waste.? For the benenfit of those new to the SCI, ?to kick off the Charter revision a small sub-group was formed to bring some revisions to the larger group. ?Then there came the question from another member who had recently joined, if we should be 'sunsetting' the SCI, or if it was indeed an open-ended standing committee. That series of events has brought us to here, where the GNSO Council now has to make the determination as to which body should do the Charter revision work. ? As Vice Chair of the Council, ?Wolf-Ulrich has signaled that this is work that Council would rather not take on BUT that is their decision as the chartering organization. In a few days we will know more. I hope that this helps put this discussion into context for all. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com? -------- Original message -------- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" Date: 09/04/2013 00:27 (GMT+01:00) To: 'Ron Andruff' Cc: 'WUKnoben' ,gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Thanks Ron.? I had no idea there was an issue in play as to whether or not we submit a new draft Charter ?to the GNSO.? This seems like a change in approach since we had in fact commissioned the smaller sub-team to revise the Charter some months ago.? Now I? think you are saying we need to ask the GNSO whether they want to do the work themselves.? I don?t have a strong opinion on this except to say that work was done by the sub-group and that work goes to waste if not shared.? Anne ? From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 12:51 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair ? Anne, ? I understand your concern, but it is clear that the Council supports our desire to have a new Charter, and Wolf-Ulrich (as V Chair of Council) notes that they do not wish to take on the work, but the GNSO Council is our chartering organization so I feel that it is their choice as to how we proceed.? I expect that we will know that direction following their meeting this week.? In any case, should the Council choose to do this work on their side, we have enough work to do in the meantime. ? Kind regards, ? RA ? Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com ? From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 14:19 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Nuno Garcia' Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair ? Ron, the letter seems good except that it appears to me SCI can work on the Charter revisions, which are almost done as I understand it, without waiting for the GNSO to determine where it stands on the full consensus issue.? The last paragraph seems to imply that SCI will wait to do this work until after GNSO advises the appropriate level of consensus for SCI.? I personally do not see why we would wait on this. We can leave this section open in the revised Charter.? I would expect discussion beyond the upcoming Council meeting on the consensus issue and I am loathe to stop our Charter revision work when it is clear that GNSO wants SCI to continue and there is no dispute on this point. ? Thank you, Anne ? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP ? Suite 700 One South Church Avenue ? Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage 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. ? From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02 AM To: 'Nuno Garcia'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair ? Dear all, ? Welcome Nuno, and thank you for your comments on this thread.? ? I, too, feel that providing more background to the Council would serve both them and the SCI, and have thus drafted a revised letter to Jonathan, which I have attached and pasted below for your review.? I have taken into account both Anne and Jennifer?s comments and hopefully captured that which they, and Wolf-Ulrich, are looking for.? Recognizing time is short, I welcome your soonest comments/amendments. ? Thank you in advance for your soonest response. ? Kind regards, ? RA ? Subject: SCI Charter Revision ? 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Sep 5 14:19:45 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 07:19:45 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, This is a reminder that according to the actions from the meeting on 06 August, SCI members are requested to review again the text below for re-submitting a motion. In particular, members should consider criteria 3 and provide to the list for discussion their rationale for or against that option. This is an item on our agenda for our 10 September meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 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: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar daysbefore the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 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. -------------- 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 Mon Sep 9 15:42:11 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:42:11 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Here are the links to the transcript and the chat transcript from the GNSO Council meeting held on 05 September. Please see the discussion beginning on page 92 concerning the SCI role and charter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben may also wish to share his thoughts on the discussion. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-05sep13-en.pdf 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 avri at acm.org Mon Sep 9 16:30:33 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ABEA27D-8122-47CC-9156-17D72C94ACD1@acm.org> Hi, Unfortunately I will be on a plane at the time of our next meeting. So apologies Julie Thanks for sending the council info. One of the things that I got out of the GNSO discussion was that even if we maintain the full consensus vote threshholder for an SCI recommendation, that does not mean that the group can't decide to send a deadlock report to the council if that were to happen. I think this report would still require full consensus agreement, but I do not see that as a problem as long as everyone's viewpoint was accurately portrayed. avri On 9 Sep 2013, at 11:42, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear SCI members, > > Here are the links to the transcript and the chat transcript from the GNSO Council meeting held on 05 September. Please see the discussion beginning on page 92 concerning the SCI role and charter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben may also wish to share his thoughts on the discussion. > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf > http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-05sep13-en.pdf > > Best regards, > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Tue Sep 10 09:02:40 2013 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:02:40 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fw: [council] RE: SCI Charter Revisions Message-ID: <52B07AB4EA3C40469CBFB7F15BC63521@WUKPC> See the outcome of the related discussion at the council meeting last week as input for the SCI call later today. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jonathan Robinson Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:29 AM To: 'Ron Andruff' Cc: council at gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] 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; 2.. 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; 3.. 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. 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 helpful. 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 Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council 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 (?full consensus? 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 SCI?s 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 ?full or unanimous consensus? or ?rough or near consensus? 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 Council?s 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 ?improves our product? 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 member?s 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, ?rough or near consent? (defined as ?a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree?) immediately follows ?full or unanimous consent?. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN?s inception. ?Near consensus?, provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group?s 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 appropriate. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Sep 10 13:06:59 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:06:59 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions In-Reply-To: <018f01ceadac$1f749fc0$5e5ddf40$@afilias.info> References: <002d01cea7b0$456f0730$d04d1590$@rnapartners.com> <018f01ceadac$1f749fc0$5e5ddf40$@afilias.info> Message-ID: <002901ceae26$a827e460$f877ad20$@rnapartners.com> 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, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners 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; 2. 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; 3. 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. 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 helpful. 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 Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council 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 ('full consensus' 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 SCI's 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 "full or unanimous consensus" or "rough or near consensus" 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 Council's 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 "improves our product" 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 member's 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, 'rough or near consent' (defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows 'full or unanimous consent'. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN's inception. 'Near consensus', provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group's 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 appropriate. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Sep 10 16:32:18 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:32:18 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD987B7FFCE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi Anne, I have copied the GNSO Secretariat staff so that they can be in touch with Greg to add him to the list and make sure he has the information to join the call. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:25 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" Subject: RE: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Thanks Julie. As an update, IPC has appointed Greg Shatan as IPC alternate to the SCI. Greg is copied on this e-mail. I do not know whether he can participate in today?s call or not, but please make sure Greg has access to the adobe room and the call. ( I did forward the phone number and the adobe link to him during our IPC call this morning.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:42 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Dear SCI members, Here are the links to the transcript and the chat transcript from the GNSO Council meeting held on 05 September. Please see the discussion beginning on page 92 concerning the SCI role and charter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben may also wish to share his thoughts on the discussion. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-05sep13-en.pdf Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2055 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Sep 10 16:37:00 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:37:00 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD987B8004B@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi Anne, Yes, I will do that. Thanks, Julie From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:34 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" Cc: "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" , "gnso-secs at icann.org" Subject: RE: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Thanks Julie, could you also please forward to Greg the most recent proposal in the language related to Resubmission of a Motion. Greg and I are aware that SCI is looking for our IPC comments on Item No. 3 , requiring a second from both houses, today. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:32 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Shatan, Gregory S.' Cc: gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: Re: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Hi Anne, I have copied the GNSO Secretariat staff so that they can be in touch with Greg to add him to the list and make sure he has the information to join the call. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:25 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" Subject: RE: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Thanks Julie. As an update, IPC has appointed Greg Shatan as IPC alternate to the SCI. Greg is copied on this e-mail. I do not know whether he can participate in today?s call or not, but please make sure Greg has access to the adobe room and the call. ( I did forward the phone number and the adobe link to him during our IPC call this morning.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:42 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Dear SCI members, Here are the links to the transcript and the chat transcript from the GNSO Council meeting held on 05 September. Please see the discussion beginning on page 92 concerning the SCI role and charter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben may also wish to share his thoughts on the discussion. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-05sep13-en.pdf Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2055 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 Glen at icann.org Tue Sep 10 16:42:24 2013 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:42:24 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD987B7FFCE@lrodcmbx1.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Greg Shatan has been added to the gnso-improvem-impl-sc mailing list and we will forward the recent documents. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: mardi 10 septembre 2013 18:32 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; 'Shatan, Gregory S.' Cc: gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: Re: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Hi Anne, I have copied the GNSO Secretariat staff so that they can be in touch with Greg to add him to the list and make sure he has the information to join the call. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:25 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" Subject: RE: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Thanks Julie. As an update, IPC has appointed Greg Shatan as IPC alternate to the SCI. Greg is copied on this e-mail. I do not know whether he can participate in today?s call or not, but please make sure Greg has access to the adobe room and the call. ( I did forward the phone number and the adobe link to him during our IPC call this morning.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:42 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Dear SCI members, Here are the links to the transcript and the chat transcript from the GNSO Council meeting held on 05 September. Please see the discussion beginning on page 92 concerning the SCI role and charter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben may also wish to share his thoughts on the discussion. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-05sep13-en.pdf Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2055 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5503 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ngarcia at ngarcia.net Tue Sep 10 17:00:57 2013 From: ngarcia at ngarcia.net (Nuno Garcia) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:00:57 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion In-Reply-To: <3ABEA27D-8122-47CC-9156-17D72C94ACD1@acm.org> References: <3ABEA27D-8122-47CC-9156-17D72C94ACD1@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear all, unfortunately I will be driving at this time, and thus I have to fail to attend this meeting. My apologies. Warm regards, Nuno Garcia On 9 September 2013 17:30, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Unfortunately I will be on a plane at the time of our next meeting. So > apologies > > Julie Thanks for sending the council info. > > One of the things that I got out of the GNSO discussion was that even if > we maintain the full consensus vote threshholder for an SCI recommendation, > that does not mean that the group can't decide to send a deadlock report to > the council if that were to happen. I think this report would still > require full consensus agreement, but I do not see that as a problem as > long as everyone's viewpoint was accurately portrayed. > > > avri > > > > > On 9 Sep 2013, at 11:42, Julie Hedlund wrote: > > > Dear SCI members, > > > > Here are the links to the transcript and the chat transcript from the > GNSO Council meeting held on 05 September. Please see the discussion > beginning on page 92 concerning the SCI role and charter. Wolf-Ulrich > Knoben may also wish to share his thoughts on the discussion. > > > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-05sep13-en.pdf > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Sep 10 20:24:06 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:24:06 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions: SCI Meeting 10 September 2013 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see below the actions from today's SCI meeting. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/10+September+2013. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions from 10 September Meeting 1. Resubmitting a motion: Pick this up on the list. Anne should consider suggesting language. 2 SCI Charter: Consider the changes to the charter, but not changes to the decision-making methodology. 3. Working Group Self Assessment: Mickey sent an invite to the WG. Send a reminder to resend with a deadline. Ken Bour will track responses. 4. Voting my email and possible inclusion of a waiver/exception: Staff: Provide a list of how many votes are taken throughout the year and when votes have been held outside of a regularly scheduled GNSO Council meeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Sep 10 20:27:37 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:27:37 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: Re-Submitting a Motion Message-ID: Dear Anne, Thank you very much today for your suggestions for changes to the procedure for re-submitting a motion. It would be very helpful if you could consider putting your suggestions in writing, perhaps by providing changes to the existing language. I have included that language below for your reference. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 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: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar daysbefore the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Sep 10 20:34:12 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:34:12 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: SCI Charter Message-ID: Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's SCI call, the GNSO Council determined at its meeting on 05 September that the SCI should submit its suggested changes to its Charter to the Council for consideration. However, these changes would not include modifications of the current language on the decision-making methodology. I have attached the latest version of the Charter. This includes the changes and comments suggested by the Charter Drafting Sub-Team and those suggested during discussions at various SCI meetings. This also is posted in the list of documents for review for the next meeting, which will be on 08 October 2013. See the link at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/08+October+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Revisions - 130724.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26689 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 ken.bour at verizon.net Tue Sep 10 22:00:15 2013 From: ken.bour at verizon.net (Ken Bour) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:00:15 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Status Message-ID: <020801ceae71$21b1f010$6515d030$@verizon.net> SCI Members: I was delighted to learn on today's call, from Mikey, that the Thick WHOIS test group was invited to complete the WG Self-Assessment instrument. According to QuestionPro, five surveys have been entered (from 22 Aug - 5 Sep). Two individuals viewed the survey, did not complete any questions, and left no identity other than IP address and region (auto-collected). Having reviewed each of the completed responses briefly, everyone appears to have followed the directions, answered all (or most) of the questions, and added comments (varies by individual). My first impression is that each assessment was thoughtfully prepared and, once we have a larger sample, should be useful to the GNSO. The content portion of the test appears to be proceeding well. As you know, the Self-Assessment does not include any questions about the methodology or the process, which are important aspects that we want to understand. I hope that the five members who already answered the questionnaire as well as all future participants from Thick WHOIS will take time to add their thoughts on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag. I will provide another update after Mikey sends out a reminder and we see a few more surveys. Once we declare this test completed (maybe two more weeks or so?), I will prepare a formal report along with stats and a listing of verbatim comments received -- randomized so as not to reveal pattern or source. If you have any questions, please let me know. Ken Bour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Wed Sep 11 05:43:04 2013 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:43:04 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 10 September 2013 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Tuesday 8 October 2013 at 1900 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 19:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130910-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Mikey O'Connor - ISPCP - Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Primary Ken Bour - guest speaker Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Amr Elsadr - NCUC Alternate James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Primary Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Jennifer Standiford - - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Ken Bour - Guest Greg Shatan - IPC - Apologies: Nuno Garcia - NCUC - Alternate Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - Vice-Chair ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Nathalie Peregrine ** 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, Nathalie Peregrine For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 10 September 2013: Jennifer Wolfe 2:Is there a separate phone dial in? Bladel:US: 866-692-5726 Passcode SCI Jennifer Wolfe 2:Thank you! Amr Elsadr:Just dialled in. Hi. Julie Hedlund:Thanks Amr! Amr Elsadr:Avri can't make it today. Amr Elsadr:Yup. On a plane. Nathalie Peregrine:Yes, Avri is an apology Angie Graves:I am Ron's alternate--will be glad to run mtg if need be Ron A:Thanks for pitching in, Angie...;o) Mike O'Connor:Bladel's a registrar Amr Elsadr:The council member didn't vote at all thinking he had a COI. Amr Elsadr:..., then realizing he didn't. Marika Konings:@ Anne - apologies for simplifying the scenario. Marika Konings:@Anne - who would make that evaluation? Marika Konings:whether the motion is the same or different? Mike O'Connor:James -- Here's the one that dropped off the list as of June - 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to betaken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether toaccept the re-submission. Julie Hedlund:@Anne: Do you have some language to suggest? Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Ron - it's two resubmissions, not three Ron A:Thanks Anne, that is my understanding Mary Wong:Just a note: the original problem that created this issue was how to prevent any person/group from resubmitting an identical motion in order to change the outcome of a previous vote. That may be narrower than what the discussion is about right now. Greg Shatan:Why is that a problem? Amr Elsadr:Got disconnected. Mike O'Connor:kudos to Anne for working that one! Nathalie Peregrine:Amr, would you like a dial out Amr Elsadr:Sorry about that. Am now on the call again. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks Mikey Amr Elsadr:I'll send my comment to the list. Ron A:Amr are you now back on the call? Is your hand up? Amr Elsadr:Yes and yes. :) Ron A:Thank you. Julie Hedlund:To Amr's point, this is what Avri sent to the SCI list yesterday on this issue: One of the things that I got out of the GNSO discussion was that even if we maintain the full consensus vote threshholder for an SCI recommendation, that does not mean that the group can't decide to send a deadlock report to the council if that were to happen. I think this report would still require full consensus agreement, but I do not see that as a problem as long as everyone's viewpoint was accurately portrayed. Amr Elsadr:Is anything expected of us on this topic at this point?? Julie Hedlund:@Amr: I think the Council expects the SCI to send its revision of the charter, but without making changes to the decision-making procedure. Amr Elsadr:@Julie..., that's what I gathered. ..., unfortunate though, because it seems Council will make some sort of decision on this which will be reflected in the SCI's new charter. Marika Konings:@Amr - that is the privilege of the chartering organization ;-) Amr Elsadr:@Marika: True... :) ..., I still wish we could have agreed as a group to give a unified recommendation. Amr Elsadr:@Mikey: I put one in too. :) Amr Elsadr:It's a big WG. :) Amr Elsadr:I'll reach out to a few as well. Jennifer Wolfe:I apologize I have to jump onto a 4 p.m. call. I look forward to continuing the discussion in email and in our next meeting. Ron A:Thank you jennifer Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Ron - I also have a 1:00 pm conference call AZ time and will drop off but hopefully Greg can stay on and let me know about the rest of the discussion. I will be sure to propose alternative language in relation to Resubmssion of a Motion. Thank you everyone . Anne Bladel:Thanks, Ron & Team! Amr Elsadr:Thanks everyone. Bye. Wolf Knoben:By all! Wolf Knoben:I mean Bye Julie Hedlund:Goodbye everyone! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Sep 11 06:35:52 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:35:52 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Status Message-ID: <9c5xnjyq4scxul3a2ere4dyh.1378881352315@email.android.com> Thank you for this update, Ken. Very good news indeed.? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com? -------- Original message -------- From: Ken Bour Date: 09/11/2013 00:00 (GMT+01:00) To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Mike O'Connor' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Status SCI Members: ? I was delighted to learn on today?s call, from Mikey, that the Thick WHOIS test group was invited to complete the WG Self-Assessment instrument. ? According to QuestionPro, five surveys have been entered (from 22 Aug ? 5 Sep). Two individuals viewed the survey, did not complete any questions, and left no identity other than IP address and region (auto-collected). ? Having reviewed each of the completed responses briefly, everyone appears to have followed the directions, answered all (or most) of the questions, and added comments (varies by individual). My first impression is that each assessment was thoughtfully prepared and, once we have a larger sample, should be useful to the GNSO. The content portion of the test appears to be proceeding well. ? As you know, the Self-Assessment does not include any questions about the methodology or the process, which are important aspects that we want to understand. I hope that the five members who already answered the questionnaire as well as all future participants from Thick WHOIS will take time to add their thoughts on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag. ? I will provide another update after Mikey sends out a reminder and we see a few more surveys. Once we declare this test completed (maybe two more weeks or so?), I will prepare a formal report along with stats and a listing of verbatim comments received -- randomized so as not to reveal pattern or source. ? If you have any questions, please let me know. ? Ken Bour ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Wed Sep 11 10:21:20 2013 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:21:20 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <160C7A15-8253-4AA6-A9EC-9BFE0E14EDF6@egyptig.org> Hi everyone, Pending Anne's suggestions for an alternative or amendment to criteria #3, I'd like to share one thought on this topic (which I began discussing when I was disconnected from yesterday's call). The incident on the GNSO Council, which prompted the drafting of some sort of guideline to refer to in future incidents requiring the resubmission of a motion, met with conflicting opinions amongst councillors on wether that specific motion should be resubmitted or not (that is if I recall correctly). The argument at the time seemed to be that the first criteria the SCI has suggested; requiring "a reason to justify the resubmission of a motion" was not found to be met by all the councillors, in addition to some of the councillors having dropped off the call when the resubmission request had been made (this is, of course, covered by the second criteria). My point is that criteria #1, although stating that reason to justify a resubmission must be provided, fails to specify what a justified reasoning really is. Criteria #3 doesn't do this either, but at least shows that there is some support across the houses to the request to resubmit. I think Anne does have a point in the third criteria being too restrictive, however, if an alternative is provided, I suggest it somehow addresses what a justifiable reason is, and/or demonstrates a willingness amongst councillors to accept a resubmission. Is there a reason why the SCI decided not to recommend the criteria Mikey dug up regarding a full council vote to determine wether a motion may or may not be resubmitted (for example??). Thanks. Amr On Sep 10, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear Anne, > > Thank you very much today for your suggestions for changes to the procedure for re-submitting a motion. It would be very helpful if you could consider putting your suggestions in writing, perhaps by providing changes to the existing language. I have included that language below for your reference. > > Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: > > 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: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar daysbefore the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. > > 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu Sep 12 15:44:36 2013 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:44:36 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: <2c243837fa294bbf97334f5f1c04596c@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <160C7A15-8253-4AA6-A9EC-9BFE0E14EDF6@egyptig.org> <2c243837fa294bbf97334f5f1c04596c@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi Jen, There is one thing that I feel needs to be noted in the sequence of the events of this particular incident: On Sep 12, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > As additional background, the instance which prompted this issue to be considered was one where a councilor abstained from a vote because of a potential conflict of interest on the motion. When a question was raised as to why he abstained, it was concluded he did not need to abstain because his SOI covered the conflict issue. The request was then made to either cast another vote or resubmit the motion. No one objected to resubmitting the motion and resubmitting the motion for a vote did not change the substantive outcome. The request to either cast another vote or resubmit the motion was not made directly following the voting, but at the very end of the meeting. By then, a few councillors had already dropped off the call. My impression at the time was that there might have been an objection to the resubmission of the motion had that not been the case, with all the councillors being present. This was a while back though, so please correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks. Amr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 12 21:35:39 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:35:39 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] apologies Message-ID: <7E94933B-D2AE-4EA9-B6CC-B7613E689B26@acm.org> hi, sorry about missing the meeting without prior apologies. just noticed the message sitting on my desktop. avri From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Sep 16 19:10:00 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:10:00 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting Message-ID: Dear Ron and Avri, Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be Sunday, 17 November. Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 minutes for a meeting. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Sep 19 16:17:49 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:17:49 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bf01ceb553$ccb3c6d0$661b5470$@rnapartners.com> Thanks for the early heads-up on this Julie. I am in transit now, and then flying home to Miami Beach tomorrow morning from Germany, so please bear with me and I'll come back to you with my thoughts on Monday. Happy to hear Avri's thoughts as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 15:10 To: Ron Andruff; Avri Doria Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting Dear Ron and Avri, Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be Sunday, 17 November. Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 minutes for a meeting. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Sep 19 16:46:30 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:46:30 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: <00bf01ceb553$ccb3c6d0$661b5470$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: Ron, Thanks so much. We do have some time ? meeting requests need to be in by 30 September ? but staff are trying to manage meeting requests to avoid conflicts so we'll really welcome feedback from you, Avri, and other SCI members. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:17 PM To: Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting Thanks for the early heads-up on this Julie. I am in transit now, and then flying home to Miami Beach tomorrow morning from Germany, so please bear with me and I?ll come back to you with my thoughts on Monday. Happy to hear Avri?s thoughts as well. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 15:10 To: Ron Andruff; Avri Doria Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting Dear Ron and Avri, Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be Sunday, 17 November. Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 minutes for a meeting. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Sep 23 22:22:32 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:22:32 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: <160C7A15-8253-4AA6-A9EC-9BFE0E14EDF6@egyptig.org> References: <160C7A15-8253-4AA6-A9EC-9BFE0E14EDF6@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <016601ceb8ab$68b083c0$3a118b40$@rnapartners.com> Dear Amr and all, Thank you for providing more context to the situation that occurred, which subsequently brought this item to our agenda. I was not aware of the timing that you clarified and that helps to frame the issue more clearly. Regarding your question: Is there a reason why the SCI decided not to recommend the criteria Mikey dug up regarding a full council vote to determine wether a motion may or may not be resubmitted (for example??). This matter is one that has been on our agenda for quite some time and I (embarrassingly) plead ignorance as to why a full council vote for re-submission was not taken into account. Hopefully staff or one of our members can help us with this one. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 06:21 To: Julie Hedlund Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: Re-Submitting a Motion Hi everyone, Pending Anne's suggestions for an alternative or amendment to criteria #3, I'd like to share one thought on this topic (which I began discussing when I was disconnected from yesterday's call). The incident on the GNSO Council, which prompted the drafting of some sort of guideline to refer to in future incidents requiring the resubmission of a motion, met with conflicting opinions amongst councillors on wether that specific motion should be resubmitted or not (that is if I recall correctly). The argument at the time seemed to be that the first criteria the SCI has suggested; requiring "a reason to justify the resubmission of a motion" was not found to be met by all the councillors, in addition to some of the councillors having dropped off the call when the resubmission request had been made (this is, of course, covered by the second criteria). My point is that criteria #1, although stating that reason to justify a resubmission must be provided, fails to specify what a justified reasoning really is. Criteria #3 doesn't do this either, but at least shows that there is some support across the houses to the request to resubmit. I think Anne does have a point in the third criteria being too restrictive, however, if an alternative is provided, I suggest it somehow addresses what a justifiable reason is, and/or demonstrates a willingness amongst councillors to accept a resubmission. Is there a reason why the SCI decided not to recommend the criteria Mikey dug up regarding a full council vote to determine wether a motion may or may not be resubmitted (for example??). Thanks. Amr On Sep 10, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Julie Hedlund > wrote: Dear Anne, Thank you very much today for your suggestions for changes to the procedure for re-submitting a motion. It would be very helpful if you could consider putting your suggestions in writing, perhaps by providing changes to the existing language. I have included that language below for your reference. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 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: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar daysbefore the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From angie at webgroup.com Wed Sep 25 19:49:56 2013 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:49:56 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <00bf01ceb553$ccb3c6d0$661b5470$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: Hi Julie, I understand that Ron is just getting settled back at home, but as his alternate, I defer to him on plans for Buenos Aires. Thank you, Angie On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Ron, > > Thanks so much. We do have some time ? meeting requests need to be in by > 30 September ? but staff are trying to manage meeting requests to avoid > conflicts so we'll really welcome feedback from you, Avri, and other SCI > members. > > Best regards, > Julie > > From: Ron Andruff > Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:17 PM > To: Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' > Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting > > Thanks for the early heads-up on this Julie. I am in transit now, and > then flying home to Miami Beach tomorrow morning from Germany, so please > bear with me and I?ll come back to you with my thoughts on Monday. **** > > ** ** > > Happy to hear Avri?s thoughts as well.**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards,**** > > ** ** > > RA**** > > ** ** > > *Ron Andruff* > > *RNA Partners* > > *www.rnapartners.com* > > ** ** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] > *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund > *Sent:* Monday, September 16, 2013 15:10 > *To:* Ron Andruff; Avri Doria > *Cc:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting** > ** > > ** ** > > Dear Ron and Avri,**** > > ** ** > > Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting > in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members > expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We > have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or > afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be > Sunday, 17 November.**** > > ** ** > > Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have > meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 > minutes for a meeting.**** > > ** ** > > Thank you very much for your assistance.**** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > ** ** > > Julie**** > > ** ** > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director**** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Sep 25 23:06:00 2013 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:06:00 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01aa01ceba43$cf1247e0$6d36d7a0$@rnapartners.com> Dear Julie and Committee Members, With all of the new faces on the SCI, and with Charter work to do along with the rest of the outstanding issues, I am going to suggest that we meet later in the afternoon on Sunday (prior to the Monday morning BA meeting kick-off) to allow as many members to join the meeting as possible. I also agree that a 90-minute meeting would provide us the time to get some significant work completed. How do the members feel about this approach? Please advise. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 15:10 To: Ron Andruff; Avri Doria Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting Dear Ron and Avri, Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be Sunday, 17 November. Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 minutes for a meeting. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 25 23:14:46 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:14:46 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: <01aa01ceba43$cf1247e0$6d36d7a0$@rnapartners.com> References: <01aa01ceba43$cf1247e0$6d36d7a0$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <6D300928-C17B-4D43-BB27-E7E3F094E0C8@acm.org> Hi, Meeting Sunday afternoon should be fine as long as it is fit into the GNSO Council schedule for that day. Sundays are often rather busy. I think a 90 minute meeting might make sense if we can somehow schedule it as a way to get this committee back on track. I feel we have lost our way over the last few months and need a reset. It would also be useful to have an open meeting, which I assume this would be, so that others who might be interested in the topics could get involved. avri On 25 Sep 2013, at 19:06, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Julie and Committee Members, > > With all of the new faces on the SCI, and with Charter work to do along with the rest of the outstanding issues, I am going to suggest that we meet later in the afternoon on Sunday (prior to the Monday morning BA meeting kick-off) to allow as many members to join the meeting as possible. > > I also agree that a 90-minute meeting would provide us the time to get some significant work completed. > > How do the members feel about this approach? Please advise. > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf OfJulie Hedlund > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 15:10 > To: Ron Andruff; Avri Doria > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting > > Dear Ron and Avri, > > Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be Sunday, 17 November. > > Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 minutes for a meeting. > > Thank you very much for your assistance. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From mike at haven2.com Wed Sep 25 23:29:01 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:29:01 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting In-Reply-To: <6D300928-C17B-4D43-BB27-E7E3F094E0C8@acm.org> References: <01aa01ceba43$cf1247e0$6d36d7a0$@rnapartners.com> <6D300928-C17B-4D43-BB27-E7E3F094E0C8@acm.org> Message-ID: <8C99627C-02DF-4D00-AB89-AAB6A4010221@haven2.com> i agree. and we're fortunate to have Wolf-Ulrich in the group, since i think he's working on the schedule for the weekend Council sessions. Wolf-Ulrich, can you give us a sense of where such a session might fit? especially given the need for some "constituency meeting time" slots as well. m On Sep 25, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Meeting Sunday afternoon should be fine as long as it is fit into the GNSO Council schedule for that day. Sundays are often rather busy. > > I think a 90 minute meeting might make sense if we can somehow schedule it as a way to get this committee back on track. I feel we have lost our way over the last few months and need a reset. It would also be useful to have an open meeting, which I assume this would be, so that others who might be interested in the topics could get involved. > > avri > > > > On 25 Sep 2013, at 19:06, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> Dear Julie and Committee Members, >> >> With all of the new faces on the SCI, and with Charter work to do along with the rest of the outstanding issues, I am going to suggest that we meet later in the afternoon on Sunday (prior to the Monday morning BA meeting kick-off) to allow as many members to join the meeting as possible. >> >> I also agree that a 90-minute meeting would provide us the time to get some significant work completed. >> >> How do the members feel about this approach? Please advise. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> Ron Andruff >> RNA Partners >> www.rnapartners.com >> >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf OfJulie Hedlund >> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 15:10 >> To: Ron Andruff; Avri Doria >> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting >> >> Dear Ron and Avri, >> >> Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be Sunday, 17 November. >> >> Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 minutes for a meeting. >> >> Thank you very much for your assistance. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Sep 30 21:38:39 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:38:39 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Reminder re: Action: Re-Submitting a Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Anne, Thank you very much for your suggestions for changes to the procedure for re-submitting a motion. It would be very helpful if you could consider putting your suggestions in writing, perhaps by providing changes to the existing language. I have included that language below for your reference. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: 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: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar daysbefore the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 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. -------------- 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 Mon Sep 30 21:40:00 2013 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:40:00 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Reminder re: Action: SCI Charter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear SCI members, As discussed on the SCI call on 10 September, the GNSO Council determined at its meeting on 05 September that the SCI should submit its suggested changes to its Charter to the Council for consideration. However, these changes would not include modifications of the current language on the decision-making methodology. I have attached the latest version of the Charter. This includes the changes and comments suggested by the Charter Drafting Sub-Team and those suggested during discussions at various SCI meetings. This also is posted in the list of documents for review for the next meeting, which will be on 08 October 2013. See the link at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/08+October+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI Charter Revisions - 130724.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26689 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: