From mary.wong at icann.org Mon Jun 2 02:43:26 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 19:43:26 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated language for Remote/Electronic Voting Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached the proposed language from the sub-group that was tasked to develop a proposal in relation to electronic/remote voting (Avri, Anne and Thomas), for discussion at the meeting on Tuesday 3 June. Please note also that Thomas has not had a chance to review the final proposed language due to the fact that the last discussion for the sub group took place at a time when he was not available; nonetheless the sub-group as a whole felt it would be more efficient to send the proposed language to the full SCI at this time for further discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI - CLEAN Remote or Electronic Voting Language 30 May 2014.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19280 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Mon Jun 2 15:23:09 2014 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:23:09 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated language for Remote/Electronic Voting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02b801cf7e76$912697e0$b373c7a0$@rnapartners.com> Thanks for this posting, Mary. I would like to commend the sub-group for giving the Committee as a whole an excellent document to work on tomorrow. We are scheduling significant time for this topic in the agenda, so I encourage all Committee members to give this draft a good read prior to our call tomorrow. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2014 22:43 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated language for Remote/Electronic Voting Dear all, Please find attached the proposed language from the sub-group that was tasked to develop a proposal in relation to electronic/remote voting (Avri, Anne and Thomas), for discussion at the meeting on Tuesday 3 June. Please note also that Thomas has not had a chance to review the final proposed language due to the fact that the last discussion for the sub group took place at a time when he was not available; nonetheless the sub-group as a whole felt it would be more efficient to send the proposed language to the full SCI at this time for further discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Mon Jun 2 16:45:44 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:45:44 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda and documents for meeting on Tuesday 3 June Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next SCI meeting, which is scheduled for Tuesday 3 June: 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI (3 minutes) 2. Confirm closing of consensus call for WG consensus levels (3 minutes) 3. Finalization of proposed language on Waivers/Exceptions, in preparation for formal consensus call (14 minutes) 4. Discussion of proposed language on Remote/Electronic Voting (35 minutes) 5. Next steps/next meeting (5 minutes) Attached are : (1) the final proposed language for Item #2 (WG consensus levels), which as you?ll recall was sent out in a formal Consensus Call that began on 30 April; (2) two documents pertaining to Item #3, the language for which dates from 13 May and involves, first, waiver of the 10-day rule for Council motions and, secondly, further tweaking the approved Resubmission of a Motion language; and (3) for Item #4, a document containing draft language for Electronic Voting from the sub-group tasked with developing a proposal for this. We will update the SCI wiki page and have the documents available in the Adobe Connect room for the meeting. Thanks and cheers Mary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Highlighted Proposed Language for Consensus Levels - 30 April[1].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 22692 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Waiver of 10 Day Motion Deadline - highlighted draft - 13 May 2014.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27136 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed Change to Resubmission of a Motion language - 13 May.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31693 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI - CLEAN Remote or Electronic Voting Language 30 May 2014.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19280 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Jun 2 19:09:01 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 12:09:01 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda and documents for meeting on Tuesday 3 June Message-ID: Dear Mary and SCI members, The agenda and documents are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/03+June+2014. They also are posted in the Adobe Connect room at: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Mary Wong Date: Monday, June 2, 2014 12:45 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda and documents for meeting on Tuesday 3 June > Dear all, > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the next SCI meeting, which is > scheduled for Tuesday 3 June: > > 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI (3 minutes) > 2. Confirm closing of consensus call for WG consensus levels (3 minutes) > 3. Finalization of proposed language on Waivers/Exceptions, in preparation for > formal consensus call (14 minutes) > 4. Discussion of proposed language on Remote/Electronic Voting (35 minutes) > 5. Next steps/next meeting (5 minutes) > Attached are : > (1) the final proposed language for Item #2 (WG consensus levels), which as > you?ll recall was sent out in a formal Consensus Call that began on 30 April; > (2) two documents pertaining to Item #3, the language for which dates from 13 > May and involves, first, waiver of the 10-day rule for Council motions and, > secondly, further tweaking the approved Resubmission of a Motion language; and > (3) for Item #4, a document containing draft language for Electronic Voting > from the sub-group tasked with developing a proposal for this. > > We will update the SCI wiki page and have the documents available in the Adobe > Connect room for the meeting. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 3 13:16:18 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:16:18 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Agenda and documents for meeting on Tuesday 3 June In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <538DCAA2.5080407@acm.org> Hi, I am not sure I can tonight's meeting as I have a competing obligation. But have a comment. On 02-Jun-14 18:45, Mary Wong wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the next SCI meeting, which > is scheduled for Tuesday 3 June: > > 1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI (3 minutes) 2. Confirm closing of > consensus call for WG consensus levels (3 minutes) i am ok with this. > 3. Finalization of proposed language on Waivers/Exceptions, in > preparation for formal consensus call (14 minutes) this needs to be taken into account with the next item given the following: > >> If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered at >> the next GNSO Council meeting. well with e-voting, there may be other voting opportunities. might be better to generalize it. How about ... at a latter time. which leaves it open whatever future voting opportunity there may be as the operational rules change. > 4. Discussion of proposed language on Remote/Electronic Voting (35 > minutes) 5. Next steps/next meeting (5 minutes) > > thanks avri From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jun 3 20:36:00 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 13:36:00 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June Message-ID: Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 03 June. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/03+June+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled as a face-to-face meeting at the ICANN-50 meeting in London, England on Saturday, 21 June at 0730 local time. A separate meeting notice will be sent to the list and will include details concerning remote access. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting Actions ? 03 June 1. Consensus Levels: The final language is approved. Action: Staff will run the language by ICANN Legal staff. The goal is to combine all changes to the Operating Procedures in one Public Comment Forum. 2. Waivers/Exceptions: amend final sentence. Options were discussed during the meeting as follows: Option A: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Counci meeting, and shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules for motions in these Operating Procedures." Option B: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting." Action: The Sub Group will come back with some revised language. 4. Remote/Electronic Voting: Continue discussion on proposed language. Action: Further discussion in London -------------- 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 terri.agnew at icann.org Wed Jun 4 13:06:55 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 06:06:55 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 03 June 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 03 June 2014 at 19:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20140603-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#june (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Greg Shatan - IPC - Alternate Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee - Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP) - Primary Member Avri Doria - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - Primary Member Cintra Sooknanan (Vice-Chair) - Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC Constituency - Primary Member Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary Angie Graves - Business Constituency (BC) - Alternate Lori Schulman - SOI Apologies: Amr Elsadr - Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) - Primary Member ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Julie Hedlund Terri Agnew ** 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, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat Transcript 03 June 2014 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the SCI call on the 3rd of June 2014 Ron A:Good day all! Ron A:just waiting in the queue to come in on the call... Thomas Rickert 3:Hi all! Mary Wong:@Lori, do you have a Statement of Interest or an update to one? lori schulman:Hi Mary, I don't believe so. lori schulman:I am ramping up on everything. Mary Wong:OK - I'll send you the link/form. We need it, and your SG/C affiliation, per the GNSO WG Guidelines :) lori schulman:No problem. I will do all that is required. Mary Wong:Thanks so much! Ron A:@ Anne: Is there a reason you would like to see this go to Legal coincidentally with Pub Com? Ron A:As opposed to serially? Mary Wong:@Avri, that is what happens Anne Aikman-Scalese:just want to know whether we are seeking Legal input on all recommendations from scI as a matter of course Greg Shatan:It sounds more like a "red flag" process than an "input" process to me.... Mary Wong:On things like rules, procedures, published reports and policy recommendations etc.., that's the practice (not just SCI or GNSO). Mary Wong:@GReg, that's exactly right. Anne Aikman-Scalese:okay, thanks. dont think Legal should delay recommendations going to gnso Mary Wong:No, absolutely. Mary Wong:If necessary, we staff can be very pesky with our colleagues on behalf of the community :) Mary Wong:I thought Julie had abandoned us!!! :) :) Anne Aikman-Scalese:no need to be pesky If Legal has comments, they should send to GNSO directly and to us at the same time Ron A:@ Anne: I think we agree with the principle you are bringing up, however I see it as a quick 'sanity' check rather than a an ask for approval. Mary Wong:@Ron, as indeed it is! Greg Shatan:How about this revision to the end of the new language: "...shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting.." Thomas Rickert 2:What about "as soon as practically possible"? Anne Aikman-Scalese:It would be better to say directly whether or not such a motion can be dealt with via e-mail voting. Greg Shatan:I disagree. The question of whether this or any other motion can be dealt with via e-mail voting. Greg Shatan:is irrelevan to this rule. Thomas Rickert 2:.shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting and dealt with according to the rules applying to GNSO Council meeting Anne Aikman-Scalese:It could still be deferred when considered. Greg Shatan:@Avri -- how about my language above? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Re "parking", I thought we said all of these items are going out for public comment at the same time. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Language in minutes lookjs good. Cintra Sooknanan:I agree with Greg's analysis .... Avri Doria:i am afraid it will be used to block. Cintra Sooknanan:Avri would you prefer to change the shall to may? Avri Doria:pabncake? what does that have to do with nything? Greg Shatan:Exactly. It has nothing dto dowht anything.... Avri Doria:i accept Thomases langauge. I do not think it is redundnat. and ass i say as written it will be used to block an intermediate vote sooner or later. anyone who has done council knows that. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Greg, are you saying amend to say "shall be considered timely submitted for the next meeting" Greg Shatan:Yes. Avri Doria:i have been convinced that it is essential to change it. Greg Shatan:Thumbs up for Option B. Cintra Sooknanan:change it in what way? shall to may? Avri Doria:Cintra, that iis not enough. and that might even block what Greg wants. Cintra Sooknanan:ok Cintra Sooknanan:are you suggesting an option c? Greg Shatan:I don't think we should preclude e-voting for these motions. I just think it is not relevant here. Anne Aikman-Scalese:If it is not precluded, that should be more clear as in Option A draft language. Cintra Sooknanan:I think it is relevant, but I think it has been catered for Cintra Sooknanan:evoting... can only take place with the disucssion taking place on the mailing list etc Cintra Sooknanan:may= can be at the next meeting or otherwise lori schulman:I agree with Avri -- "may" appears to make the vote optional. Greg Shatan:I don't think Option B in any way precludes a request for evoting or a special meeting. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Greg is more of a purist than I am. He is legally quite correct but I think it wont be clear to non-lawyers. Greg Shatan:Meh. Ron A:Thank you on behalf of the non-lawyers Anne! ;o) Greg Shatan:@Avri -- it's treyfe! That's why it could not pass your lips. Cintra Sooknanan:sorry have connection problems Avri Doria:Greg: (: Ron A:Cintra:Can you add your thoughts via the chat? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Mary, is it always a motion? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks Avri. Mary Wong:For COuncil voting? Yes I believe so - tho I will check re Greg's question about the Chair. Cintra Sooknanan:my issue is with the quorum Cintra Sooknanan:was there any mention on quorum on an email vote Cintra Sooknanan:is there automatic quorum? Cintra Sooknanan:I am scanning the text but maybe I am missing it Anne Aikman-Scalese:Check bylaws requirement for quorum per Cintra's comment! Mary Wong:There is a quorum requirement - think we tried to capture that in Section 5 Cintra Sooknanan:is it that as long as the email credentials are sent out the vote is assumed to be quorate Cintra Sooknanan:? Mary Wong:SEction 4.1 of the GNSO Op Proc, to be precise. Cintra Sooknanan:sorry for not speaking earlier very noisy here at the moment Ron A:All good Cintra. Cintra Sooknanan:my reason for declining approval was beacuse i think we need to beef up the quorum section here Cintra Sooknanan:thanks everyone... and to the subteam for their work on this... :) Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks everyone! Cintra Sooknanan:bye everyone, thanks Ron Thomas Rickert 2:bye all - cu in London! thanks Ron! Greg Shatan:2:30 am for remote lori schulman:thank you for my first 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: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 11 20:07:48 2014 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:07:48 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7453755FC57844D9A810D9DB09FEB918@WUKPC> Julie, is the London meeting supposed to take place in room Sovereign where the GNSO weekend meetings shall happen? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 10:36 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 03 June. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/03+June+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled as a face-to-face meeting at the ICANN-50 meeting in London, England on Saturday, 21 June at 0730 local time. A separate meeting notice will be sent to the list and will include details concerning remote access. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting Actions ? 03 June 1. Consensus Levels: The final language is approved. Action: Staff will run the language by ICANN Legal staff. The goal is to combine all changes to the Operating Procedures in one Public Comment Forum. 2. Waivers/Exceptions: amend final sentence. Options were discussed during the meeting as follows: Option A: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Counci meeting, and shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules for motions in these Operating Procedures." Option B: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting." Action: The Sub Group will come back with some revised language. 4. Remote/Electronic Voting: Continue discussion on proposed language. Action: Further discussion in London -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jun 11 20:12:35 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:12:35 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June In-Reply-To: <7453755FC57844D9A810D9DB09FEB918@WUKPC> References: <7453755FC57844D9A810D9DB09FEB918@WUKPC> Message-ID: Wolf-Ulrich, Yes, that is my understanding. I think it is supposed to occur prior to the start of the GNSO session, so before 9:00 am. I know that the Secretariat is working on the final schedule for these meetings. We should see meeting notices soon that confirm the location and also provide remote access. Best regards, Julie From: WUKnoben Reply-To: WUKnoben Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:07 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June > Julie, > > is the London meeting supposed to take place in room Sovereign where the GNSO > weekend meetings shall happen? > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Julie Hedlund > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 10:36 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June > > Dear All, > > Please find below the action items from the call on 03 June. These also are > posted to the wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/03+June+2014. Our next meeting is > scheduled as a face-to-face meeting at the ICANN-50 meeting in London, England > on Saturday, 21 June at 0730 local time. A separate meeting notice will be > sent to the list and will include details concerning remote access. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > SCI Meeting Actions ? 03 June > 1. Consensus Levels: The final language is approved. > > Action: Staff will run the language by ICANN Legal staff. The goal is to > combine all changes to the Operating Procedures in one Public Comment Forum. > 2. Waivers/Exceptions: amend final sentence. Options were discussed during > the meeting as follows: > > Option A: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered > timely submitted for the next GNSO Counci meeting, and shall be dealt with in > accordance with the rules for motions in these Operating Procedures." > > Option B: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered > timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting." > > Action: The Sub Group will come back with some revised language. > > 4. Remote/Electronic Voting: Continue discussion on proposed language. > > Action: Further discussion in London -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 11 21:05:48 2014 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:05:48 +0200 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June In-Reply-To: References: <7453755FC57844D9A810D9DB09FEB918@WUKPC> Message-ID: Thanks Julie Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:12 PM To: WUKnoben ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June Wolf-Ulrich, Yes, that is my understanding. I think it is supposed to occur prior to the start of the GNSO session, so before 9:00 am. I know that the Secretariat is working on the final schedule for these meetings. We should see meeting notices soon that confirm the location and also provide remote access. Best regards, Julie From: WUKnoben Reply-To: WUKnoben Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:07 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June Julie, is the London meeting supposed to take place in room Sovereign where the GNSO weekend meetings shall happen? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 10:36 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 03 June Dear All, Please find below the action items from the call on 03 June. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/03+June+2014. Our next meeting is scheduled as a face-to-face meeting at the ICANN-50 meeting in London, England on Saturday, 21 June at 0730 local time. A separate meeting notice will be sent to the list and will include details concerning remote access. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting Actions ? 03 June 1. Consensus Levels: The final language is approved. Action: Staff will run the language by ICANN Legal staff. The goal is to combine all changes to the Operating Procedures in one Public Comment Forum. 2. Waivers/Exceptions: amend final sentence. Options were discussed during the meeting as follows: Option A: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Counci meeting, and shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules for motions in these Operating Procedures." Option B: "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next GNSO Council meeting." Action: The Sub Group will come back with some revised language. 4. Remote/Electronic Voting: Continue discussion on proposed language. Action: Further discussion in London -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Wed Jun 18 11:43:34 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 04:43:34 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London Message-ID: Dear SCI members, In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI?s meeting scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am sending you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language for Waiver of the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. Essentially, the following changes were made to the version that was discussed on the last SCI call: 1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of the sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses the concerns raised by the so-called ?Option A? and ?Option B? language discussed in the last SCI call ? the new recommendation basically considers a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires it be submitted again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. Please see the attached redline for the proposed change. 2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a further question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the Council liaison for clarification: * On the addition ? the sub-group proposes making it clear that E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see attached redline for the new language in Section 5.) * On the requested clarification ? the sub-group notes that the Council?s original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was not intended to extend the time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to obtain clarification one way or the other from the Council on this point. For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at its London meeting. A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the sub-group?s request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported the original work team that developed the current version of the Procedures. Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were expressly carried over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the current version; and (2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage full participation and attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It should not be easy for a Councilor to not attend a meeting or participate in discussions therein and yet be permitted to cast a vote). I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Waiver of 10 Day Motion Deadline - 12 June 2014.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI - Remote or Electronic Voting Language 12 June 2014.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 20257 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 18 12:45:10 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:45:10 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53A189D6.9030407@acm.org> On 18-Jun-14 07:43, Mary Wong wrote: > For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does > not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver > language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at > its London meeting. though I thought alternate language had already been proposed. Was I the only one with issues? avri From randruff at rnapartners.com Wed Jun 18 15:32:22 2014 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:32:22 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00e801cf8b0a$81998710$84cc9530$@rnapartners.com> Dear Mary, Thank you for the comprehensive report and documentation. Can you confirm that Anne's latest editing offer (noted below) - which I believe Avri supports - has been included? This may have slipped by on the list last week. "If rejected , such a motion shall be considered timely submitted for the next Council meeting and will not be considered to be "resubmitted" for purposes of the rules on resubmission of a motion. Further, if rejected, such a motion may also be dealt with in accordance with all other applicable Operating Procedures and customary practices, including, without limitation, the rules for e-mail voting and deferral of motions." Thank you, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 07:44 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London Dear SCI members, In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI's meeting scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am sending you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language for Waiver of the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. Essentially, the following changes were made to the version that was discussed on the last SCI call: 1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of the sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses the concerns raised by the so-called "Option A" and "Option B" language discussed in the last SCI call - the new recommendation basically considers a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires it be submitted again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. Please see the attached redline for the proposed change. 2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a further question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the Council liaison for clarification: * On the addition - the sub-group proposes making it clear that E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see attached redline for the new language in Section 5.) * On the requested clarification - the sub-group notes that the Council's original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was not intended to extend the time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to obtain clarification one way or the other from the Council on this point. For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at its London meeting. A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the sub-group's request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported the original work team that developed the current version of the Procedures. Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were expressly carried over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the current version; and (2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage full participation and attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It should not be easy for a Councilor to not attend a meeting or participate in discussions therein and yet be permitted to cast a vote). I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 18 17:50:31 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:50:31 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London In-Reply-To: <00e801cf8b0a$81998710$84cc9530$@rnapartners.com> References: <00e801cf8b0a$81998710$84cc9530$@rnapartners.com> Message-ID: <53A1D167.6060609@acm.org> Hi, Yes, I do support that wording in general. One nit has occured to me since the last time I thought about it, is its specificity on other possible rules that might apply. For example, the council has not approved email voting yet (in fact I thought we were being tech agnostic in that one). So I would recommend putting a period after "without limitation." But in general yes, I do support it. avri On 18-Jun-14 11:32, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Mary, > > > > Thank you for the comprehensive report and documentation. > > > > Can you confirm that Anne?s latest editing offer (noted below) - which I > believe Avri supports - has been included? This may have slipped by on > the list last week? > > > > "If rejected , such a motion shall be considered timely submitted for > the next Council meeting and will not be considered to be "resubmitted" > for purposes of the rules on resubmission of a motion. Further, if > rejected, such a motion may also be dealt with in accordance with all > other applicable Operating Procedures and customary practices, > including, without limitation, the rules for e-mail voting and deferral > of motions." > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > RA > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > *ONR Consulting, Inc.* > > *www.ICANNSherpa.com * > > > > *From:*owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 18, 2014 07:44 > *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline > Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London > > > > Dear SCI members, > > > > In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI?s meeting > scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am > sending you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language > for Waiver of the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. > Essentially, the following changes were made to the version that was > discussed on the last SCI call: > > > > 1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of > the sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses > the concerns raised by the so-called ?Option A? and ?Option B? language > discussed in the last SCI call ? the new recommendation basically > considers a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires > it be submitted again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. > Please see the attached redline for the proposed change. > > > > 2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one > substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a > further question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the > Council liaison for clarification: > > * On the addition ? the sub-group proposes making it clear that > E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has > already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but > for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see > attached redline for the new language in Section 5.) > * On the requested clarification ? the sub-group notes that the > Council?s original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy > Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the > Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. > Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the > proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was _not_ intended to extend the > time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific > Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting > (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council > meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as > initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to > obtain clarification one way or the other from the Council on this > point. > > For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does > not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver > language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at > its London meeting. > > > > A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated > grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the > sub-group?s request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported > the original work team that developed the current version of the > Procedures. Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were > expressly carried over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the > current version; and (2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage > full participation and attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It > should not be easy for a Councilor to not attend a meeting or > participate in discussions therein and yet be permitted to cast a vote). > > > > I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > > Email: mary.wong at icann.org > > > > > > > From mary.wong at icann.org Wed Jun 18 20:31:20 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:31:20 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London In-Reply-To: <53A1D167.6060609@acm.org> References: <00e801cf8b0a$81998710$84cc9530$@rnapartners.com> <53A1D167.6060609@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached a further updated version of the Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline language incorporating Anne?s suggestion - note that this version therefore REPLACES the version I sent out earlier today dated 12 June 2014. The proposal regarding Remote/Electronic Voting remains unchanged and thus the latest version of that is the one dated 12 June. Cheers Mary -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 7:50 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London > >Hi, > >Yes, I do support that wording in general. > >One nit has occured to me since the last time I thought about it, is its >specificity on other possible rules that might apply. For example, the >council has not approved email voting yet (in fact I thought we were >being tech agnostic in that one). So I would recommend putting a period >after "without limitation." > >But in general yes, I do support it. > >avri > > >On 18-Jun-14 11:32, Ron Andruff wrote: >> Dear Mary, >> >> >> >> Thank you for the comprehensive report and documentation. >> >> >> >> Can you confirm that Anne?s latest editing offer (noted below) - which I >> believe Avri supports - has been included? This may have slipped by on >> the list last week? >> >> >> >> "If rejected , such a motion shall be considered timely submitted for >> the next Council meeting and will not be considered to be "resubmitted" >> for purposes of the rules on resubmission of a motion. Further, if >> rejected, such a motion may also be dealt with in accordance with all >> other applicable Operating Procedures and customary practices, >> including, without limitation, the rules for e-mail voting and deferral >> of motions." >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> RA >> >> >> >> *Ron Andruff* >> >> *ONR Consulting, Inc.* >> >> *www.ICANNSherpa.com * >> >> >> >> *From:*owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 18, 2014 07:44 >> *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline >> Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London >> >> >> >> Dear SCI members, >> >> >> >> In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI?s meeting >> scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am >> sending you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language >> for Waiver of the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. >> Essentially, the following changes were made to the version that was >> discussed on the last SCI call: >> >> >> >> 1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of >> the sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses >> the concerns raised by the so-called ?Option A? and ?Option B? language >> discussed in the last SCI call ? the new recommendation basically >> considers a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires >> it be submitted again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. >> Please see the attached redline for the proposed change. >> >> >> >> 2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one >> substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a >> further question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the >> Council liaison for clarification: >> >> * On the addition ? the sub-group proposes making it clear that >> E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has >> already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but >> for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see >> attached redline for the new language in Section 5.) >> * On the requested clarification ? the sub-group notes that the >> Council?s original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy >> Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the >> Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. >> Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the >> proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was _not_ intended to extend the >> time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific >> Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting >> (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council >> meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as >> initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to >> obtain clarification one way or the other from the Council on this >> point. >> >> For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does >> not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver >> language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at >> its London meeting. >> >> >> >> A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated >> grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the >> sub-group?s request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported >> the original work team that developed the current version of the >> Procedures. Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were >> expressly carried over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the >> current version; and (2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage >> full participation and attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It >> should not be easy for a Councilor to not attend a meeting or >> participate in discussions therein and yet be permitted to cast a >>vote). >> >> >> >> I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful. >> >> >> >> Thanks and cheers >> >> Mary >> >> >> >> Mary Wong >> >> Senior Policy Director >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Waiver of 10 Day Motion Deadline - 18 June 2014.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GShatan at reedsmith.com Fri Jun 20 22:50:58 2014 From: GShatan at reedsmith.com (Shatan, Gregory S.) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:50:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Will there be remote participation for this meeting? I?ll stay up and find out?. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:44 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London Dear SCI members, In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI?s meeting scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am sending you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language for Waiver of the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. Essentially, the following changes were made to the version that was discussed on the last SCI call: 1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of the sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses the concerns raised by the so-called ?Option A? and ?Option B? language discussed in the last SCI call ? the new recommendation basically considers a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires it be submitted again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. Please see the attached redline for the proposed change. 2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a further question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the Council liaison for clarification: * On the addition ? the sub-group proposes making it clear that E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see attached redline for the new language in Section 5.) * On the requested clarification ? the sub-group notes that the Council?s original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was not intended to extend the time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to obtain clarification one way or the other from the Council on this point. For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at its London meeting. A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the sub-group?s request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported the original work team that developed the current version of the Procedures. Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were expressly carried over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the current version; and (2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage full participation and attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It should not be easy for a Councilor to not attend a meeting or participate in discussions therein and yet be permitted to cast a vote). I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Fri Jun 20 23:02:53 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:02:53 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Greg and everyone, Here is the remote participation link for all the GNSO working sessions on Saturday in London: http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Jun 20, 2014, at 23:51, "Shatan, Gregory S." > wrote: Will there be remote participation for this meeting? I?ll stay up and find out?. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:44 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London Dear SCI members, In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI?s meeting scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am sending you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language for Waiver of the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. Essentially, the following changes were made to the version that was discussed on the last SCI call: 1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of the sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses the concerns raised by the so-called ?Option A? and ?Option B? language discussed in the last SCI call ? the new recommendation basically considers a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires it be submitted again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. Please see the attached redline for the proposed change. 2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a further question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the Council liaison for clarification: * On the addition ? the sub-group proposes making it clear that E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see attached redline for the new language in Section 5.) * On the requested clarification ? the sub-group notes that the Council?s original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was not intended to extend the time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to obtain clarification one way or the other from the Council on this point. For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at its London meeting. A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the sub-group?s request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported the original work team that developed the current version of the Procedures. Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were expressly carried over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the current version; and (2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage full participation and attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It should not be easy for a Councilor to not attend a meeting or participate in discussions therein and yet be permitted to cast a vote). I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Fri Jun 20 23:00:18 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:00:18 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Greg and everyone, This is the link for remote participation for all of the GNSO's Saturday working sessions in London: http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/sat-gnso-working Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Jun 20, 2014, at 23:51, "Shatan, Gregory S." > wrote: Will there be remote participation for this meeting? I?ll stay up and find out?. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:44 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated drafts of Motion Deadline Waiver & E-Voting proposals for discussion in London Dear SCI members, In light of the London meeting approaching rapidly and the SCI?s meeting scheduled for this Saturday 21 June (0730 a.m. London time), I am sending you for your review the latest drafts of the proposed language for Waiver of the 10-Day Motion rule and for Remote/Electronic Voting. Essentially, the following changes were made to the version that was discussed on the last SCI call: 1. In relation to Waiver of the 10-day Motion Deadline, a majority of the sub-group has made a new recommendation that it believes addresses the concerns raised by the so-called ?Option A? and ?Option B? language discussed in the last SCI call ? the new recommendation basically considers a failed late motion as not submitted and therefore requires it be submitted again per the usual 10-day rule for the next meeting. Please see the attached redline for the proposed change. 2. In relation to E-Voting, the sub-group is recommending at least one substantive addition to the proposed language, and requesting that a further question be brought back to the GNSO Council by Avri as the Council liaison for clarification: * On the addition ? the sub-group proposes making it clear that E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting (please see attached redline for the new language in Section 5.) * On the requested clarification ? the sub-group notes that the Council?s original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was not intended to extend the time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as initiating a PDP), the sub-group believes it will be useful to obtain clarification one way or the other from the Council on this point. For discussion purposes, I should note that Avri has indicated she does not support the proposed change to the 10-day Motion Deadline Waiver language, and the proposal will be further discussed by the full SCI at its London meeting. A question had also been raised regarding the origin of the four stated grounds for Absentee Voting in the GNSO Operating Procedures. At the sub-group?s request staff has checked with our colleagues who supported the original work team that developed the current version of the Procedures. Their notes indicate that (1) those specific grounds were expressly carried over from the old GNSO procedures and unchanged in the current version; and (2) the reason for their inclusion is to encourage full participation and attendance at GNSO Council meetings (i.e. It should not be easy for a Councilor to not attend a meeting or participate in discussions therein and yet be permitted to cast a vote). I hope this note and the attached documents are helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. * * * To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Sat Jun 21 09:12:18 2014 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 02:12:18 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action items: SCI Meeting 21 June Message-ID: Dear All, Please find below the action items from the meeting on 21 June. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/21+June+2014. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director SCI Meeting ? 21 June 1. Waiver of Motions Deadline: Review proposed language (to be sent to the list) for Option C. Send comments in 14 days. 2. Electronic voting: Continue consideration of issues concerning quorum. -------------- 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 mary.wong at icann.org Sun Jun 22 17:01:04 2014 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:01:04 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Updated language on Waiver of 10-day Motion Deadline Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please find attached an updated version of the draft language relating to a possible waiver of the 10-day motion deadline for the GNSO Council, revised to reflect the SCI discussion on Saturday. Again, this pertains to the question what happens to a motion which fails to fulfill all the stated requirements for a waiver. Unfortunately, the transcript is not yet available and I have not had a chance to listen to the audio recording to extract Avri?s suggestion which Cintra had requested to be added as another option ? as such, Avri, if you are able to either edit the document or send a note to the list with your suggestion, please do! I just wanted to get this to all of you before Monday in case your SG/C plans to discuss this topic during Constituency Day on Tuesday. As Ron indicated and Julie noted after the meeting, the idea is to receive comments on this language within 14 days of the 21 June meeting. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Waiver of 10 Day Motion Deadline - 22 June 2014.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Tue Jun 24 11:14:33 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:14:33 -0700 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Transcript 21 June 2014 SCI Private Message-ID: Dear All, Please find attached the transcription of the SCI private call held on the 21 June 2014 in London. Kind regards Terri Agnew For GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transcript SCI 21 June 2014.doc Type: application/msword Size: 119296 bytes Desc: transcript SCI 21 June 2014.doc URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Tue Jun 24 15:20:16 2014 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:20:16 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Transcript 21 June 2014 SCI Private In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <030001cf8fbf$d0799c30$716cd490$@rnapartners.com> Dear all, Just a small point of clarification, this is the transcript from the face-to-face meeting that was held here in London this past Saturday morning rather than a private call, as noted below. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 07:15 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Transcript 21 June 2014 SCI Private Dear All, Please find attached the transcription of the SCI private call held on the 21 June 2014 in London. Kind regards Terri Agnew For GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randruff at rnapartners.com Thu Jun 26 07:26:22 2014 From: randruff at rnapartners.com (Ron Andruff) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 03:26:22 -0400 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] =?us-ascii?Q?SCI's_request_for_clarification_?= Message-ID: <000001cf910f$ffcebeb0$ff6c3c10$@rnapartners.com> Dear Jonathan, I write to follow up on the SCI update to the GNSO that took place on Saturday, during the GNSO's weekend sessions here in London. I wanted to make sure that the SCI's request for clarification was sufficiently clear so as to enable the Council to provide us with the guidance we seek. The following were the "action items" that the SCI had identified as outstanding tasks for which we are seeking Council clarification: * The SCI may propose that E-Voting is to be permissible only in cases where a motion has already been properly submitted for a regular Council meeting but for various reasons cannot be voted on at that meeting. QUESTION FOR GNSO COUNCIL: IS THIS UNDERSTANDING CORRECT? * The SCI notes that the Council's original request to the SCI mentioned the need for speedy Council action as there is at present no mechanism by which the Council could vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Although it had initially proceeded on the basis/assumption that the proposed new mechanism of E-Voting was not intended to extend the time or provide an additional voting mechanism for those specific Council actions that, at present, are eligible for Absentee Voting (which takes place 72 hours after a regularly scheduled Council meeting and applies only to certain listed actions such as initiating a PDP), the SCI seeks clarification one way or the other from the Council on this point. - QUESTION FOR COUNCIL: IS THIS UNDERSTANDING CORRECT? Thank you for your kind attention. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. www.ICANNSherpa.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: