From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 05:15:08 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 00:15:08 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <4CC51C26-FB23-43F0-BDE4-359AE2986142@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B670EF4@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B686A48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Meeting on 13 January will conflict with the Non-Contracted Parties House Intersessional, for those attending (of which I am one). Of course, such things are sometimes unavoidable. Greg Shatan On Wednesday, December 31, 2014, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Dear Anne and SCI members, > > The GNSO Secretariat can assist in scheduling an SCI call at the usual > time of 2000 UTC on Tuesday, 13 January. The staff and Secretariat also > can assist in requesting 15 minutes for Avri on the GNSO Council schedule > in Singapore to discuss the SCI direction for 2015. Whether the time will > be granted will depend of course on the Council's workload, which will as > noted be taken up largely with issues relating to the IANA stewardship > transition and accountability. > > With respect to the Charter, please refer to the wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. Please note in > particular the General and Working Method sections. In the General section > the following sentence indicates the scope of the SCI's remit: "The SCI is > also responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the > GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that > have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the > GNSO Council as needing discussion." As per the Charter the GNSO Council > generally has requested that the SCI should address specific issues > relating to its processes and procedures (rather than the SCI making the > request to the Council). See the work completed by the SCI since its > inception: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. It > has nonetheless been noted on the SCI wiki as of October 2014 that the SCI > has suggested to the Council that it take up the following two issues: 1) > a full review of the Working Group Consensus Levels and 2) a full review of > the GNSO Operating Procedures. See: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49357334. Also > as noted by Mary Wong on 18 December, prior to assigning new issues to the > SCI it is possible that the Council may wish to consider the results of the > first report of the GNSO review, as well its tasks with respect to the IANA > stewardship transition and accountability. > > I hope you all have a Happy New Year! > > Best regards, > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > From: , Anne > > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:30 PM > To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Amr Elsadr' < > aelsadr at egyptig.org >, > " >" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of > voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating > Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > SCI members and Julie, > > > > My goal would be for SCI to have a letter to GNSO composed in time for > Avri to present it in Singapore GNSO working sessions as a menu of items > which GNSO Council could choose from to provide assignments to SCI. My > question is whether a January 13 call would be sufficient time for SCI to > have a discussion leading to preparation of the letter to Council based on > projects we have considered in the past and that Ron and Greg have > outlined. > > > > I do not think that SCI work should stop due to the IANA transition > issues. One question might be how SCI can best help GNSO in addressing > these issues. For example, if SCI reviews PDP consensus levels on a more > thorough basis than previously examined, would that improve ICANN > Accountability as it relates to the transition? Do these consensus levels > or any other aspect of the PDP process have a significant impact on > accountability? > > > > So from my point of view, > > > > Question 1 is: Can we schedule a call as late as January 13 and still get > Avri 15 minutes on the GNSO Council schedule to discuss SCI direction for > 2015? > > > > Question 2: What work is within SCI?s Charter that will assist Council > the most in relation to the IANA transition and overall ICANN > Accountability? > > > > I would propose to discuss these questions in a January 13 call to be > scheduled by Julie. As to whether we can get on the Council schedule in > working sessions in Singapore for this purpose, I think we need to rely on > Avri and Glen for that purpose. Avri, your thoughts? > > > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com ** > | www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > > > *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org > ] > *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:09 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of > voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating > Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > I've attached Ron's slides from LA. Please also see the wiki on the Work > Completed/In Progress at: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. Staff > will update it to reflect the items recently approved by the Council. > > > > If the SCI wants to give the Council time to consider a letter at their > meeting on the 15th as a courtesy you might want to have it to the Council > by January 5th, which is the deadline for motions and documents. However, > this may not be possible since it wouldn't allow time for SCI members to > discuss a letter during a call, and members also are likely to be out > during the next two weeks for holidays so they may not be able to make much > progress on the list. In addition, the ICANN offices are closed beginning > at Noon on 24 December through Friday, 2 January 2015. They will reopen on > 5 January. We can certainly schedule a meeting at the usual time on the 6th > to kick things off. Let us know if you would like us to schedule a meeting > on the 6th. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support > > > > *From: *, Anne > > *Date: *Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:38 PM > *To: *'Amr Elsadr' >, "< > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > *Cc: *Julie Hedlund > > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of > voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating > Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > > > Thanks Amr. This new provision looks quite useful in these > circumstances. Nice to know. > > > > I?ll be out of the office all next week but am looking at the > correspondence between you and Greg. > > > > Ron and Julie, could the two of you recap the projects Ron presented to > Council as possibilities for SCI work during the meeting in LA? If > possible I would appreciate receiving a copy of Ron?s slides. > > > > Finally, Julie, does it make sense for us to schedule the first SCI call > to review a draft letter to Council on January 13 or does it need to be > January 6? > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com ** > | www.LRRLaw.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, December 17, 2014 2:05 PM > *To:* > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting > outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > > > Hi, > > > > Just thought that it?d be interesting for folks here to know that one of > our recent projects is being put to use. :) > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > *From: *Glen de Saint G?ry > > > *Subject: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: > Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board > Working Group* > > *Date: *December 17, 2014 at 9:28:01 PM GMT+1 > > *To: *Council GNSO > > > > > Dear Councillors > > > > The Council approved at the meeting on 11 December 2014, Voting Outside a > Meeting, as described in Section 4.10 in the revised GNSO Operating > Procedures > for the Council?s reply comment on the Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group. > > The proposed timeline for this vote is: > > > > 1. *31 December 2014 23:59 UTC Final Council reply comment* on the > Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group submitted > to the Council mailing list. > *Tony Holmes* to hold the pen on refining the comment > > up to 31 December 2014. > > 2. Voting by electronic ballot: > *Voting Opens Saturday, 3 January 2015* > > *Voting **C**loses on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC*. > If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me > know so that alternate arrangements can be made. > > 3. 9 January 2015 Comments submitted to the public comment forum > > > 4. All Council members, except the non-voting Nominating Committee > Appointee are eligible to vote. > > > > 4. 10. 2 Determination; > Notice. Voting outside a meeting may only occur when all of the following > conditions are met: > > a. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, > that the issue will have been adequately discussed and sufficient time > given to each Stakeholder Group and Constituency to consider the issue by > the time the vote is called; > > b. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council > members, that the Council?s regular meeting schedule would make it > difficult to resolve the issue without scheduling an extra meeting and this > would be impractical in light of the circumstances at that time; > > c. No Councilor objects to the vote being taken outside a > regularly scheduled Council meeting; and > > d. The GNSO Chair provides at least seven (7) calendar days? > advance notice of the vote, along with notice of the beginning and ending > day and hour of the voting period (in UTC), which period shall not be less > than four (4) calendar days. > > > > 4. 10.3.1 Guidelines > for Voting Outside a Meeting > > As with votes taken during a regularly scheduled GNSO Council meeting, all > votes taken outside a meeting will: > > a. Be open (i.e., not by secret ballot); > > b. Allow for the inclusion of voting statements in accordance with Section > 4.3.2 of these Operating Procedures; and > > c. Have their outcomes published and recorded, with accompanying voter > statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping. These > items > > are to be prepared and approved in accordance with Section 3.5 of these > Operating Procedures, except that the relevant time period shall commence > with the ending of the voting period. > > 4.10.3.2 Voting outside a meeting should normally be by electronic means. > Methods used to transmit and record votes taken outside of meetings shall > be authenticated and verifiable using the same criteria and applying the > same standards as those used for absentee ballots under Section 4.4.3 of > these Operating Procedures. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > > > Glen > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > * > *http://gnso.icann.org * > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > 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. > > -------------- 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: From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 1 06:15:53 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 01:15:53 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI mtg was Re: [] Fwd: [] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: ... In-Reply-To: References: <4CC51C26-FB23-43F0-BDE4-359AE2986142@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B670EF4@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B686A48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54A4E619.1060509@acm.org> Hi, I will also be attending the intersessional. I am, of course, fine with delivering a report to the council. Supposed to do that from time to time in any case. avri On 01-Jan-15 00:15, Greg Shatan wrote: > Meeting on 13 January will conflict with the Non-Contracted Parties > House Intersessional, for those attending (of which I am one). Of > course, such things are sometimes unavoidable. > > Greg Shatan > > On Wednesday, December 31, 2014, Julie Hedlund > > wrote: > > Dear Anne and SCI members, > > The GNSO Secretariat can assist in scheduling an SCI call at the > usual time of 2000 UTC on Tuesday, 13 January. The staff and > Secretariat also can assist in requesting 15 minutes for Avri on > the GNSO Council schedule in Singapore to discuss the SCI > direction for 2015. Whether the time will be granted will depend > of course on the Council's workload, which will as noted be taken > up largely with issues relating to the IANA stewardship transition > and accountability. > > With respect to the Charter, please refer to the wiki > at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. > Please note in particular the General and Working Method > sections. In the General section the following sentence indicates > the scope of the SCI's remit: "The SCI is also responsible for > considering requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council > processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have > been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by > the GNSO Council as needing discussion." As per the Charter the > GNSO Council generally has requested that the SCI should address > specific issues relating to its processes and procedures (rather > than the SCI making the request to the Council). See the work > completed by the SCI since its inception: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. It > has nonetheless been noted on the SCI wiki as of October 2014 that > the SCI has suggested to the Council that it take up the following > two issues: 1) a full review of the Working Group Consensus > Levels and 2) a full review of the GNSO Operating Procedures. > See: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49357334. Also > as noted by Mary Wong on 18 December, prior to assigning new > issues to the SCI it is possible that the Council may wish to > consider the results of the first report of the GNSO review, as > well its tasks with respect to the IANA stewardship transition and > accountability. > > I hope you all have a Happy New Year! > > Best regards, > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > From: , Anne > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:30 PM > To: Julie Hedlund , 'Amr Elsadr' > , "" > > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification > of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment > Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > SCI members and Julie, > > > > My goal would be for SCI to have a letter to GNSO composed in > time for Avri to present it in Singapore GNSO working sessions > as a menu of items which GNSO Council could choose from to > provide assignments to SCI. My question is whether a January > 13 call would be sufficient time for SCI to have a discussion > leading to preparation of the letter to Council based on > projects we have considered in the past and that Ron and Greg > have outlined. > > > > I do not think that SCI work should stop due to the IANA > transition issues. One question might be how SCI can best > help GNSO in addressing these issues. For example, if SCI > reviews PDP consensus levels on a more thorough basis than > previously examined, would that improve ICANN Accountability > as it relates to the transition? Do these consensus levels or > any other aspect of the PDP process have a significant impact > on accountability? > > > > So from my point of view, > > > > Question 1 is: Can we schedule a call as late as January 13 > and still get Avri 15 minutes on the GNSO Council schedule to > discuss SCI direction for 2015? > > > > Question 2: What work is within SCI?s Charter that will > assist Council the most in relation to the IANA transition and > overall ICANN Accountability? > > > > I would propose to discuss these questions in a January 13 > call to be scheduled by Julie. As to whether we can get on > the Council schedule in working sessions in Singapore for this > purpose, I think we need to rely on Avri and Glen for that > purpose. Avri, your thoughts? > > > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com_**| www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > ** > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:09 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; > > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] > Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council > reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the > Board Working Group > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > I've attached Ron's slides from LA. Please also see the wiki > on the Work Completed/In Progress > at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. > Staff will update it to reflect the items recently approved > by the Council. > > > > If the SCI wants to give the Council time to consider a letter > at their meeting on the 15th as a courtesy you might want to > have it to the Council by January 5th, which is the deadline > for motions and documents. However, this may not be possible > since it wouldn't allow time for SCI members to discuss a > letter during a call, and members also are likely to be out > during the next two weeks for holidays so they may not be able > to make much progress on the list. In addition, the ICANN > offices are closed beginning at Noon on 24 December through > Friday, 2 January 2015. They will reopen on 5 January. We can > certainly schedule a meeting at the usual time on the 6th to > kick things off. Let us know if you would like us to schedule > a meeting on the 6th. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support > > > > *From: *, Anne > *Date: *Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:38 PM > *To: *'Amr Elsadr' , > "" > > *Cc: *Julie Hedlund > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] > Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council > reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the > Board Working Group > > > > Thanks Amr. This new provision looks quite useful in > these circumstances. Nice to know. > > > > I?ll be out of the office all next week but am looking at > the correspondence between you and Greg. > > > > Ron and Julie, could the two of you recap the projects Ron > presented to Council as possibilities for SCI work during > the meeting in LA? If possible I would appreciate > receiving a copy of Ron?s slides. > > > > Finally, Julie, does it make sense for us to schedule the > first SCI call to review a draft letter to Council on > January 13 or does it need to be January 6? > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona > 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com_**| www.LRRLaw.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, December 17, 2014 2:05 PM > *To:* > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] > Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council > reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from > the Board Working Group > > > > Hi, > > > > Just thought that it?d be interesting for folks here to > know that one of our recent projects is being put to use. :) > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > *From: *Glen de Saint G?ry > > *Subject: [council] Notification of voting outside a > Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating > Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group* > > *Date: *December 17, 2014 at 9:28:01 PM GMT+1 > > *To: *Council GNSO > > > > Dear Councillors > > > > The Council approved at the meeting on 11 December 2014, > Voting Outside a Meeting, as described in Section 4.10 in > the revised GNSO Operating Procedures > for > the Council?s reply comment on the Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group. > > The proposed timeline for this vote is: > > > > 1. *31 December 2014 23:59 UTC Final Council reply > comment* on the Nominating Committee Recommendations from > the Board Working Group submitted to the Council mailing list. > *Tony Holmes* to hold the pen on refining the comment > up > to 31 December 2014. > > 2. Voting by electronic ballot: > *Voting Opens Saturday, 3 January 2015* > > *Voting **C**loses on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC*. > If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, > please let me know so that alternate arrangements can be made. > > 3. 9 January 2015 Comments submitted to the public > comment forum > > > 4. All Council members, except the non-voting > Nominating Committee Appointee are eligible to vote. > > > > 4. 10. 2 > Determination; > Notice. Voting outside a meeting may only occur when all > of the following conditions are met: > > a. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with > Council members, that the issue will have been adequately > discussed and sufficient time given to each Stakeholder > Group and Constituency to consider the issue by the time > the vote is called; > > b. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion > with Council members, that the Council?s regular meeting > schedule would make it difficult to resolve the issue > without scheduling an extra meeting and this would be > impractical in light of the circumstances at that time; > > c. No Councilor objects to the vote being taken > outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting; and > > d. The GNSO Chair provides at least seven (7) > calendar days? advance notice of the vote, along with > notice of the beginning and ending day and hour of the > voting period (in UTC), which period shall not be less > than four (4) calendar days. > > > > 4. 10.3.1 > Guidelines > for Voting Outside a Meeting > > As with votes taken during a regularly scheduled GNSO > Council meeting, all votes taken outside a meeting will: > > a. Be open (i.e., not by secret ballot); > > b. Allow for the inclusion of voting statements in > accordance with Section 4.3.2 of these Operating > Procedures; and > > c. Have their outcomes published and recorded, with > accompanying voter statements, if any, as minutes for > purposes of formal record keeping. These items > > are to be prepared and approved in accordance with Section > 3.5 of these Operating Procedures, except that the > relevant time period shall commence with the ending of the > voting period. > > 4.10.3.2 Voting outside a meeting should normally be by > electronic means. Methods used to transmit and record > votes taken outside of meetings shall be authenticated and > verifiable using the same criteria and applying the same > standards as those used for absentee ballots under Section > 4.4.3 of these Operating Procedures. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > > > Glen > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org* > *http://gnso.icann.org * > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Glen at icann.org Fri Jan 2 11:53:12 2015 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 11:53:12 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <4CC51C26-FB23-43F0-BDE4-359AE2986142@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B670EF4@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B686A48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Julie, In view of the conflict with the NCPH Intercessional, please confirm whether you would like us to proceed with scheduling the next SCI meeting on 13 January 2015? Thank you very much. Wishing you all a very happy and successful New Year! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From: Julie Hedlund Sent: mercredi 31 d?cembre 2014 17:33 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Dear Anne and SCI members, The GNSO Secretariat can assist in scheduling an SCI call at the usual time of 2000 UTC on Tuesday, 13 January. The staff and Secretariat also can assist in requesting 15 minutes for Avri on the GNSO Council schedule in Singapore to discuss the SCI direction for 2015. Whether the time will be granted will depend of course on the Council's workload, which will as noted be taken up largely with issues relating to the IANA stewardship transition and accountability. With respect to the Charter, please refer to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. Please note in particular the General and Working Method sections. In the General section the following sentence indicates the scope of the SCI's remit: "The SCI is also responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion." As per the Charter the GNSO Council generally has requested that the SCI should address specific issues relating to its processes and procedures (rather than the SCI making the request to the Council). See the work completed by the SCI since its inception: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. It has nonetheless been noted on the SCI wiki as of October 2014 that the SCI has suggested to the Council that it take up the following two issues: 1) a full review of the Working Group Consensus Levels and 2) a full review of the GNSO Operating Procedures. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49357334. Also as noted by Mary Wong on 18 December, prior to assigning new issues to the SCI it is possible that the Council may wish to consider the results of the first report of the GNSO review, as well its tasks with respect to the IANA stewardship transition and accountability. I hope you all have a Happy New Year! Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:30 PM To: Julie Hedlund , 'Amr Elsadr' , "" Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group SCI members and Julie, My goal would be for SCI to have a letter to GNSO composed in time for Avri to present it in Singapore GNSO working sessions as a menu of items which GNSO Council could choose from to provide assignments to SCI. My question is whether a January 13 call would be sufficient time for SCI to have a discussion leading to preparation of the letter to Council based on projects we have considered in the past and that Ron and Greg have outlined. I do not think that SCI work should stop due to the IANA transition issues. One question might be how SCI can best help GNSO in addressing these issues. For example, if SCI reviews PDP consensus levels on a more thorough basis than previously examined, would that improve ICANN Accountability as it relates to the transition? Do these consensus levels or any other aspect of the PDP process have a significant impact on accountability? So from my point of view, Question 1 is: Can we schedule a call as late as January 13 and still get Avri 15 minutes on the GNSO Council schedule to discuss SCI direction for 2015? Question 2: What work is within SCI?s Charter that will assist Council the most in relation to the IANA transition and overall ICANN Accountability? I would propose to discuss these questions in a January 13 call to be scheduled by Julie. As to whether we can get on the Council schedule in working sessions in Singapore for this purpose, I think we need to rely on Avri and Glen for that purpose. Avri, your thoughts? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:09 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Hi Anne, I've attached Ron's slides from LA. Please also see the wiki on the Work Completed/In Progress at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. Staff will update it to reflect the items recently approved by the Council. If the SCI wants to give the Council time to consider a letter at their meeting on the 15th as a courtesy you might want to have it to the Council by January 5th, which is the deadline for motions and documents. However, this may not be possible since it wouldn't allow time for SCI members to discuss a letter during a call, and members also are likely to be out during the next two weeks for holidays so they may not be able to make much progress on the list. In addition, the ICANN offices are closed beginning at Noon on 24 December through Friday, 2 January 2015. They will reopen on 5 January. We can certainly schedule a meeting at the usual time on the 6th to kick things off. Let us know if you would like us to schedule a meeting on the 6th. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support From: , Anne Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Amr Elsadr' , "" Cc: Julie Hedlund Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Thanks Amr. This new provision looks quite useful in these circumstances. Nice to know. I?ll be out of the office all next week but am looking at the correspondence between you and Greg. Ron and Julie, could the two of you recap the projects Ron presented to Council as possibilities for SCI work during the meeting in LA? If possible I would appreciate receiving a copy of Ron?s slides. Finally, Julie, does it make sense for us to schedule the first SCI call to review a draft letter to Council on January 13 or does it need to be January 6? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.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, December 17, 2014 2:05 PM To: Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Hi, Just thought that it?d be interesting for folks here to know that one of our recent projects is being put to use. :) Thanks. Amr Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Date: December 17, 2014 at 9:28:01 PM GMT+1 To: Council GNSO Dear Councillors The Council approved at the meeting on 11 December 2014, Voting Outside a Meeting, as described in Section 4.10 in the revised GNSO Operating Procedures for the Council?s reply comment on the Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group. The proposed timeline for this vote is: 1. 31 December 2014 23:59 UTC Final Council reply comment on the Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group submitted to the Council mailing list. Tony Holmes to hold the pen on refining the comment up to 31 December 2014. 2. Voting by electronic ballot: Voting Opens Saturday, 3 January 2015 Voting Closes on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC. If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me know so that alternate arrangements can be made. 3. 9 January 2015 Comments submitted to the public comment forum 4. All Council members, except the non-voting Nominating Committee Appointee are eligible to vote. 4. 10. 2 Determination; Notice. Voting outside a meeting may only occur when all of the following conditions are met: a. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, that the issue will have been adequately discussed and sufficient time given to each Stakeholder Group and Constituency to consider the issue by the time the vote is called; b. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, that the Council?s regular meeting schedule would make it difficult to resolve the issue without scheduling an extra meeting and this would be impractical in light of the circumstances at that time; c. No Councilor objects to the vote being taken outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting; and d. The GNSO Chair provides at least seven (7) calendar days? advance notice of the vote, along with notice of the beginning and ending day and hour of the voting period (in UTC), which period shall not be less than four (4) calendar days. 4. 10.3.1 Guidelines for Voting Outside a Meeting As with votes taken during a regularly scheduled GNSO Council meeting, all votes taken outside a meeting will: a. Be open (i.e., not by secret ballot); b. Allow for the inclusion of voting statements in accordance with Section 4.3.2 of these Operating Procedures; and c. Have their outcomes published and recorded, with accompanying voter statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping. These items are to be prepared and approved in accordance with Section 3.5 of these Operating Procedures, except that the relevant time period shall commence with the ending of the voting period. 4.10.3.2 Voting outside a meeting should normally be by electronic means. Methods used to transmit and record votes taken outside of meetings shall be authenticated and verifiable using the same criteria and applying the same standards as those used for absentee ballots under Section 4.4.3 of these Operating Procedures. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org _____ 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. _____ 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. -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5503 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Jan 2 16:23:22 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 16:23:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <4CC51C26-FB23-43F0-BDE4-359AE2986142@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B670EF4@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B686A48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Anne and SCI members, As there is a conflict on the 13th, could we consider the following Tuesday, 20 January? Perhaps a letter could be drafted in advance and reviewed on the list ahead of the meeting. Please advise how you would like staff to proceed. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 6:53 AM To: Julie Hedlund , "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" , "" Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group > Dear Julie, > > In view of the conflict with the NCPH Intercessional, please confirm whether > you would like us to proceed with scheduling the next SCI meeting on 13 > January 2015? > > Thank you very much. > Wishing you all a very happy and successful New Year! > > Kind regards, > > Glen > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > From: Julie Hedlund > Sent: mercredi 31 d?cembre 2014 17:33 > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting > outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > > Dear Anne and SCI members, > > > > The GNSO Secretariat can assist in scheduling an SCI call at the usual time of > 2000 UTC on Tuesday, 13 January. The staff and Secretariat also can assist in > requesting 15 minutes for Avri on the GNSO Council schedule in Singapore to > discuss the SCI direction for 2015. Whether the time will be granted will > depend of course on the Council's workload, which will as noted be taken up > largely with issues relating to the IANA stewardship transition and > accountability. > > > > With respect to the Charter, please refer to the wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. Please note in > particular the General and Working Method sections. In the General section > the following sentence indicates the scope of the SCI's remit: "The SCI is > also responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the > GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that > have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the > GNSO Council as needing discussion." As per the Charter the GNSO Council > generally has requested that the SCI should address specific issues relating > to its processes and procedures (rather than the SCI making the request to the > Council). See the work completed by the SCI since its inception: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. It has > nonetheless been noted on the SCI wiki as of October 2014 that the SCI has > suggested to the Council that it take up the following two issues: 1) a full > review of the Working Group Consensus Levels and 2) a full review of the GNSO > Operating Procedures. See: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49357334. Also as > noted by Mary Wong on 18 December, prior to assigning new issues to the SCI it > is possible that the Council may wish to consider the results of the first > report of the GNSO review, as well its tasks with respect to the IANA > stewardship transition and accountability. > > > > I hope you all have a Happy New Year! > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > From: , Anne > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:30 PM > To: Julie Hedlund , 'Amr Elsadr' > , "" > > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting > outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > >> >> SCI members and Julie, >> >> My goal would be for SCI to have a letter to GNSO composed in time for Avri >> to present it in Singapore GNSO working sessions as a menu of items which >> GNSO Council could choose from to provide assignments to SCI. My question is >> whether a January 13 call would be sufficient time for SCI to have a >> discussion leading to preparation of the letter to Council based on projects >> we have considered in the past and that Ron and Greg have outlined. >> >> I do not think that SCI work should stop due to the IANA transition issues. >> One question might be how SCI can best help GNSO in addressing these issues. >> For example, if SCI reviews PDP consensus levels on a more thorough basis >> than previously examined, would that improve ICANN Accountability as it >> relates to the transition? Do these consensus levels or any other aspect of >> the PDP process have a significant impact on accountability? >> >> So from my point of view, >> >> Question 1 is: Can we schedule a call as late as January 13 and still get >> Avri 15 minutes on the GNSO Council schedule to discuss SCI direction for >> 2015? >> >> Question 2: What work is within SCI?s Charter that will assist Council the >> most in relation to the IANA transition and overall ICANN Accountability? >> >> I would propose to discuss these questions in a January 13 call to be >> scheduled by Julie. As to whether we can get on the Council schedule in >> working sessions in Singapore for this purpose, I think we need to rely on >> Avri and Glen for that purpose. Avri, your thoughts? >> >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:09 PM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >> >> >> Hi Anne, >> >> >> >> I've attached Ron's slides from LA. Please also see the wiki on the Work >> Completed/In Progress at: >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. Staff >> will update it to reflect the items recently approved by the Council. >> >> >> >> If the SCI wants to give the Council time to consider a letter at their >> meeting on the 15th as a courtesy you might want to have it to the Council by >> January 5th, which is the deadline for motions and documents. However, this >> may not be possible since it wouldn't allow time for SCI members to discuss a >> letter during a call, and members also are likely to be out during the next >> two weeks for holidays so they may not be able to make much progress on the >> list. In addition, the ICANN offices are closed beginning at Noon on 24 >> December through Friday, 2 January 2015. They will reopen on 5 January. We >> can certainly schedule a meeting at the usual time on the 6th to kick things >> off. Let us know if you would like us to schedule a meeting on the 6th. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support >> >> >> >> From: , Anne >> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:38 PM >> To: 'Amr Elsadr' , "" >> >> Cc: Julie Hedlund >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >> >> >>> >>> Thanks Amr. This new provision looks quite useful in these circumstances. >>> Nice to know. >>> >>> I?ll be out of the office all next week but am looking at the correspondence >>> between you and Greg. >>> >>> Ron and Julie, could the two of you recap the projects Ron presented to >>> Council as possibilities for SCI work during the meeting in LA? If possible >>> I would appreciate receiving a copy of Ron?s slides. >>> >>> Finally, Julie, does it make sense for us to schedule the first SCI call to >>> review a draft letter to Council on January 13 or does it need to be January >>> 6? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.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, December 17, 2014 2:05 PM >>> To: >>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> Just thought that it?d be interesting for folks here to know that one of our >>> recent projects is being put to use. :) >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> >>> Subject: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council >>> reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working >>> Group >>> >>> Date: December 17, 2014 at 9:28:01 PM GMT+1 >>> >>> To: Council GNSO >>> >>> >>> Dear Councillors >>> >>> >>> >>> The Council approved at the meeting on 11 December 2014, Voting Outside a >>> Meeting, as described in Section 4.10 in the revised GNSO Operating >>> Procedures >>> for the Council?s reply comment on the Nominating Committee Recommendations >>> from the Board Working Group. >>> >>> The proposed timeline for this vote is: >>> >>> >>> 1. 31 December 2014 23:59 UTC Final Council reply comment on the >>> Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group submitted >>> to the Council mailing list. >>> Tony Holmes to hold the pen on refining the comment >>> >> ons-02dec14-en.pdf> up to 31 December 2014. >>> >>> 2. Voting by electronic ballot: >>> Voting Opens Saturday, 3 January 2015 >>> >>> Voting Closes on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC. >>> If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me >>> know so that alternate arrangements can be made. >>> >>> 3. 9 January 2015 Comments submitted to the public comment forum >>> >>> >>> 4. All Council members, except the non-voting Nominating Committee >>> Appointee are eligible to vote. >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. 10. 2 >>> Determination; Notice. Voting outside a meeting may only occur when all of >>> the following conditions are met: >>> >>> a. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, >>> that the issue will have been adequately discussed and sufficient time given >>> to each Stakeholder Group and Constituency to consider the issue by the time >>> the vote is called; >>> >>> b. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, >>> that the Council?s regular meeting schedule would make it difficult to >>> resolve the issue without scheduling an extra meeting and this would be >>> impractical in light of the circumstances at that time; >>> >>> c. No Councilor objects to the vote being taken outside a regularly >>> scheduled Council meeting; and >>> >>> d. The GNSO Chair provides at least seven (7) calendar days? advance >>> notice of the vote, along with notice of the beginning and ending day and >>> hour of the voting period (in UTC), which period shall not be less than four >>> (4) calendar days. >>> >>> >>> 4. 10.3.1 >>> Guidelines for Voting Outside a Meeting >>> >>> As with votes taken during a regularly scheduled GNSO Council meeting, all >>> votes taken outside a meeting will: >>> >>> a. Be open (i.e., not by secret ballot); >>> >>> b. Allow for the inclusion of voting statements in accordance with Section >>> 4.3.2 of these Operating Procedures; and >>> >>> c. Have their outcomes published and recorded, with accompanying voter >>> statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping. These >>> items >>> >>> are to be prepared and approved in accordance with Section 3.5 of these >>> Operating Procedures, except that the relevant time period shall commence >>> with the ending of the voting period. >>> >>> 4.10.3.2 Voting outside a meeting should normally be by electronic means. >>> Methods used to transmit and record votes taken outside of meetings shall be >>> authenticated and verifiable using the same criteria and applying the same >>> standards as those used for absentee ballots under Section 4.4.3 of these >>> Operating Procedures. >>> >>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> >>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>> GNSO Secretariat >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>> http://gnso.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Fri Jan 2 20:49:04 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 20:49:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <4CC51C26-FB23-43F0-BDE4-359AE2986142@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B670EF4@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B686A48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B68DD12@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Julie, I think your suggestion for January 20 makes perfect sense. I will undertake to draft a letter requesting further guidance to SCI from Council. I have notes from both Greg and Amr with respect to this and have noted your reference to the items listed in the wiki related to (1) review of WG Consensus Levels and (2) a full review of GNSO Operating Procedures. I note that SCI itself is a "group chartered by the GNSO Council" and that it raised the question of review of WG Consensus Levels with Council last year after working on the "Consensus Against" issue. So let's schedule the January 20 meeting in hopes that more members may attend and I will draft a letter before that listing the items raised by Greg and Amr in previous e-mails as well as the WG Consensus Level review for Council's consideration. Many thanks Julie, Glen, et all for your guidance. I certainly do think that we want to ask Council to give Avri 15 minutes in Singapore. I think this means our letter must be final before February 1 and that seems reasonable. Julie, could you please send me a template for sending a letter to Jonathan from SCI based on previous letters sent by Ron and Wolf-Ulrich? I look forward to talking with the members on January 20. Thank you and Happy New Year to all who celebrate it!, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D02692.0BF80A30] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:23 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Dear Anne and SCI members, As there is a conflict on the 13th, could we consider the following Tuesday, 20 January? Perhaps a letter could be drafted in advance and reviewed on the list ahead of the meeting. Please advise how you would like staff to proceed. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 6:53 AM To: Julie Hedlund >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >, ">" > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Dear Julie, In view of the conflict with the NCPH Intercessional, please confirm whether you would like us to proceed with scheduling the next SCI meeting on 13 January 2015? Thank you very much. Wishing you all a very happy and successful New Year! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From: Julie Hedlund Sent: mercredi 31 d?cembre 2014 17:33 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Dear Anne and SCI members, The GNSO Secretariat can assist in scheduling an SCI call at the usual time of 2000 UTC on Tuesday, 13 January. The staff and Secretariat also can assist in requesting 15 minutes for Avri on the GNSO Council schedule in Singapore to discuss the SCI direction for 2015. Whether the time will be granted will depend of course on the Council's workload, which will as noted be taken up largely with issues relating to the IANA stewardship transition and accountability. With respect to the Charter, please refer to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. Please note in particular the General and Working Method sections. In the General section the following sentence indicates the scope of the SCI's remit: "The SCI is also responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion." As per the Charter the GNSO Council generally has requested that the SCI should address specific issues relating to its processes and procedures (rather than the SCI making the request to the Council). See the work completed by the SCI since its inception: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. It has nonetheless been noted on the SCI wiki as of October 2014 that the SCI has suggested to the Council that it take up the following two issues: 1) a full review of the Working Group Consensus Levels and 2) a full review of the GNSO Operating Procedures. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49357334. Also as noted by Mary Wong on 18 December, prior to assigning new issues to the SCI it is possible that the Council may wish to consider the results of the first report of the GNSO review, as well its tasks with respect to the IANA stewardship transition and accountability. I hope you all have a Happy New Year! Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:30 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Amr Elsadr' >, ">" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group SCI members and Julie, My goal would be for SCI to have a letter to GNSO composed in time for Avri to present it in Singapore GNSO working sessions as a menu of items which GNSO Council could choose from to provide assignments to SCI. My question is whether a January 13 call would be sufficient time for SCI to have a discussion leading to preparation of the letter to Council based on projects we have considered in the past and that Ron and Greg have outlined. I do not think that SCI work should stop due to the IANA transition issues. One question might be how SCI can best help GNSO in addressing these issues. For example, if SCI reviews PDP consensus levels on a more thorough basis than previously examined, would that improve ICANN Accountability as it relates to the transition? Do these consensus levels or any other aspect of the PDP process have a significant impact on accountability? So from my point of view, Question 1 is: Can we schedule a call as late as January 13 and still get Avri 15 minutes on the GNSO Council schedule to discuss SCI direction for 2015? Question 2: What work is within SCI's Charter that will assist Council the most in relation to the IANA transition and overall ICANN Accountability? I would propose to discuss these questions in a January 13 call to be scheduled by Julie. As to whether we can get on the Council schedule in working sessions in Singapore for this purpose, I think we need to rely on Avri and Glen for that purpose. Avri, your thoughts? Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D02692.0BF80A30] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:09 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Hi Anne, I've attached Ron's slides from LA. Please also see the wiki on the Work Completed/In Progress at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. Staff will update it to reflect the items recently approved by the Council. If the SCI wants to give the Council time to consider a letter at their meeting on the 15th as a courtesy you might want to have it to the Council by January 5th, which is the deadline for motions and documents. However, this may not be possible since it wouldn't allow time for SCI members to discuss a letter during a call, and members also are likely to be out during the next two weeks for holidays so they may not be able to make much progress on the list. In addition, the ICANN offices are closed beginning at Noon on 24 December through Friday, 2 January 2015. They will reopen on 5 January. We can certainly schedule a meeting at the usual time on the 6th to kick things off. Let us know if you would like us to schedule a meeting on the 6th. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Amr Elsadr' >, ">" > Cc: Julie Hedlund > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Thanks Amr. This new provision looks quite useful in these circumstances. Nice to know. I'll be out of the office all next week but am looking at the correspondence between you and Greg. Ron and Julie, could the two of you recap the projects Ron presented to Council as possibilities for SCI work during the meeting in LA? If possible I would appreciate receiving a copy of Ron's slides. Finally, Julie, does it make sense for us to schedule the first SCI call to review a draft letter to Council on January 13 or does it need to be January 6? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D02692.0BF80A30] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.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, December 17, 2014 2:05 PM To: > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Hi, Just thought that it'd be interesting for folks here to know that one of our recent projects is being put to use. :) Thanks. Amr Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Date: December 17, 2014 at 9:28:01 PM GMT+1 To: Council GNSO > Dear Councillors The Council approved at the meeting on 11 December 2014, Voting Outside a Meeting, as described in Section 4.10 in the revised GNSO Operating Procedures for the Council's reply comment on the Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group. The proposed timeline for this vote is: 1. 31 December 2014 23:59 UTC Final Council reply comment on the Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group submitted to the Council mailing list. Tony Holmes to hold the pen on refining the comment up to 31 December 2014. 2. Voting by electronic ballot: Voting Opens Saturday, 3 January 2015 Voting Closes on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC. If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me know so that alternate arrangements can be made. 3. 9 January 2015 Comments submitted to the public comment forum 4. All Council members, except the non-voting Nominating Committee Appointee are eligible to vote. 4. 10. 2 Determination; Notice. Voting outside a meeting may only occur when all of the following conditions are met: a. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, that the issue will have been adequately discussed and sufficient time given to each Stakeholder Group and Constituency to consider the issue by the time the vote is called; b. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, that the Council's regular meeting schedule would make it difficult to resolve the issue without scheduling an extra meeting and this would be impractical in light of the circumstances at that time; c. No Councilor objects to the vote being taken outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting; and d. The GNSO Chair provides at least seven (7) calendar days' advance notice of the vote, along with notice of the beginning and ending day and hour of the voting period (in UTC), which period shall not be less than four (4) calendar days. 4. 10.3.1 Guidelines for Voting Outside a Meeting As with votes taken during a regularly scheduled GNSO Council meeting, all votes taken outside a meeting will: a. Be open (i.e., not by secret ballot); b. Allow for the inclusion of voting statements in accordance with Section 4.3.2 of these Operating Procedures; and c. Have their outcomes published and recorded, with accompanying voter statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping. These items are to be prepared and approved in accordance with Section 3.5 of these Operating Procedures, except that the relevant time period shall commence with the ending of the voting period. 4.10.3.2 Voting outside a meeting should normally be by electronic means. Methods used to transmit and record votes taken outside of meetings shall be authenticated and verifiable using the same criteria and applying the same standards as those used for absentee ballots under Section 4.4.3 of these Operating Procedures. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Jan 5 16:00:34 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:00:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B68DD12@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <4CC51C26-FB23-43F0-BDE4-359AE2986142@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B670EF4@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B686A48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B68DD12@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, If there are no objections received today from SCI members, the GNSO Secretariat will schedule the next meeting for 20 January at the usual time. As to the letter, there is no template. In general there have been two ways that the SCI has communicated to the Council. The most common is for the liaison to send a motion to the Council for consideration concerning revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures, as was done most recently by Avri for the revisions that were approved at the Council meeting on 13 November. The motion was sent in an email message from Avri to the Council list. The second way the SCI has contacted the Council is also via email when the SCI has taken up an issue, but has determined that no changes to the Operating Procedures are warranted, or to recommend other changes not related to the Operating Procedures. This was how the changes to the SCI Charter were addressed in 2013. In that case Ron sent an email to the Council Chair with the draft revised Charter as an attachment and a short description of the changes. Recommendations on deferral of motions and raising an issue, which were addressed by the SCI at the Council's request in 2012, did not require changes to the Operating Procedures. In those cases Wolf-Ulrich sent emails to the Council Chair providing a brief background on the issue and indicating how the SCI recommended that it should be addressed. For the wording contained in these emails see the text in quotes under each issue heading on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. With respect to the SCI suggestion for a full review of WG Consensus levels, I don't think there was any prior correspondence to the Council. I cannot find any from the archives either from Ron or Avri. Mary Wong did record this suggestion on the Wiki, I think as a reflection of the SCI conversations at its meeting in LA in October if I recall correctly. Thus, in this instance I think that you could draft an email asking for Council guidance on the 2015 work of the SCI and including the suggested possible issues. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 3:49 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "" Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group > Julie, > I think your suggestion for January 20 makes perfect sense. I will undertake > to draft a letter requesting further guidance to SCI from Council. I have > notes from both Greg and Amr with respect to this and have noted your > reference to the items listed in the wiki related to (1) review of WG > Consensus Levels and (2) a full review of GNSO Operating Procedures. I note > that SCI itself is a ?group chartered by the GNSO Council? and that it raised > the question of review of WG Consensus Levels with Council last year after > working on the ?Consensus Against? issue. > > So let?s schedule the January 20 meeting in hopes that more members may attend > and I will draft a letter before that listing the items raised by Greg and Amr > in previous e-mails as well as the WG Consensus Level review for Council?s > consideration. > > Many thanks Julie, Glen, et all for your guidance. I certainly do think that > we want to ask Council to give Avri 15 minutes in Singapore. I think this > means our letter must be final before February 1 and that seems reasonable. > > Julie, could you please send me a template for sending a letter to Jonathan > from SCI based on previous letters sent by Ron and Wolf-Ulrich? I look > forward to talking with the members on January 20. > > Thank you and Happy New Year to all who celebrate it!, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:23 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting > outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > > Dear Anne and SCI members, > > > > As there is a conflict on the 13th, could we consider the following Tuesday, > 20 January? Perhaps a letter could be drafted in advance and reviewed on the > list ahead of the meeting. > > > > Please advise how you would like staff to proceed. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 6:53 AM > To: Julie Hedlund , "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > , "" > > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting > outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > >> >> Dear Julie, >> >> In view of the conflict with the NCPH Intercessional, please confirm whether >> you would like us to proceed with scheduling the next SCI meeting on 13 >> January 2015? >> >> Thank you very much. >> Wishing you all a very happy and successful New Year! >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Glen >> >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry >> GNSO Secretariat >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> >> From: Julie Hedlund >> Sent: mercredi 31 d?cembre 2014 17:33 >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >> >> >> Dear Anne and SCI members, >> >> >> >> The GNSO Secretariat can assist in scheduling an SCI call at the usual time >> of 2000 UTC on Tuesday, 13 January. The staff and Secretariat also can >> assist in requesting 15 minutes for Avri on the GNSO Council schedule in >> Singapore to discuss the SCI direction for 2015. Whether the time will be >> granted will depend of course on the Council's workload, which will as noted >> be taken up largely with issues relating to the IANA stewardship transition >> and accountability. >> >> >> >> With respect to the Charter, please refer to the wiki at: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. Please note in >> particular the General and Working Method sections. In the General section >> the following sentence indicates the scope of the SCI's remit: "The SCI is >> also responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the >> GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that >> have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the >> GNSO Council as needing discussion." As per the Charter the GNSO Council >> generally has requested that the SCI should address specific issues relating >> to its processes and procedures (rather than the SCI making the request to >> the Council). See the work completed by the SCI since its inception: >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. It has >> nonetheless been noted on the SCI wiki as of October 2014 that the SCI has >> suggested to the Council that it take up the following two issues: 1) a full >> review of the Working Group Consensus Levels and 2) a full review of the GNSO >> Operating Procedures. See: >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49357334. Also as >> noted by Mary Wong on 18 December, prior to assigning new issues to the SCI >> it is possible that the Council may wish to consider the results of the first >> report of the GNSO review, as well its tasks with respect to the IANA >> stewardship transition and accountability. >> >> >> >> I hope you all have a Happy New Year! >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> >> >> >> From: , Anne >> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:30 PM >> To: Julie Hedlund , 'Amr Elsadr' >> , "" >> >> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >> >> >>> >>> SCI members and Julie, >>> >>> My goal would be for SCI to have a letter to GNSO composed in time for Avri >>> to present it in Singapore GNSO working sessions as a menu of items which >>> GNSO Council could choose from to provide assignments to SCI. My question >>> is whether a January 13 call would be sufficient time for SCI to have a >>> discussion leading to preparation of the letter to Council based on projects >>> we have considered in the past and that Ron and Greg have outlined. >>> >>> I do not think that SCI work should stop due to the IANA transition issues. >>> One question might be how SCI can best help GNSO in addressing these issues. >>> For example, if SCI reviews PDP consensus levels on a more thorough basis >>> than previously examined, would that improve ICANN Accountability as it >>> relates to the transition? Do these consensus levels or any other aspect of >>> the PDP process have a significant impact on accountability? >>> >>> So from my point of view, >>> >>> Question 1 is: Can we schedule a call as late as January 13 and still get >>> Avri 15 minutes on the GNSO Council schedule to discuss SCI direction for >>> 2015? >>> >>> Question 2: What work is within SCI?s Charter that will assist Council the >>> most in relation to the IANA transition and overall ICANN Accountability? >>> >>> I would propose to discuss these questions in a January 13 call to be >>> scheduled by Julie. As to whether we can get on the Council schedule in >>> working sessions in Singapore for this purpose, I think we need to rely on >>> Avri and Glen for that purpose. Avri, your thoughts? >>> >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:09 PM >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>> >>> >>> Hi Anne, >>> >>> >>> >>> I've attached Ron's slides from LA. Please also see the wiki on the Work >>> Completed/In Progress at: >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. Staff >>> will update it to reflect the items recently approved by the Council. >>> >>> >>> >>> If the SCI wants to give the Council time to consider a letter at their >>> meeting on the 15th as a courtesy you might want to have it to the Council >>> by January 5th, which is the deadline for motions and documents. However, >>> this may not be possible since it wouldn't allow time for SCI members to >>> discuss a letter during a call, and members also are likely to be out during >>> the next two weeks for holidays so they may not be able to make much >>> progress on the list. In addition, the ICANN offices are closed beginning >>> at Noon on 24 December through Friday, 2 January 2015. They will reopen on >>> 5 January. We can certainly schedule a meeting at the usual time on the 6th >>> to kick things off. Let us know if you would like us to schedule a meeting >>> on the 6th. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> >>> >>> Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support >>> >>> >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:38 PM >>> To: 'Amr Elsadr' , "" >>> >>> Cc: Julie Hedlund >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Amr. This new provision looks quite useful in these circumstances. >>>> Nice to know. >>>> >>>> I?ll be out of the office all next week but am looking at the >>>> correspondence between you and Greg. >>>> >>>> Ron and Julie, could the two of you recap the projects Ron presented to >>>> Council as possibilities for SCI work during the meeting in LA? If >>>> possible I would appreciate receiving a copy of Ron?s slides. >>>> >>>> Finally, Julie, does it make sense for us to schedule the first SCI call to >>>> review a draft letter to Council on January 13 or does it need to be >>>> January 6? >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.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, December 17, 2014 2:05 PM >>>> To: >>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just thought that it?d be interesting for folks here to know that one of >>>> our recent projects is being put to use. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> >>>> Subject: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: >>>> Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board >>>> Working Group >>>> >>>> Date: December 17, 2014 at 9:28:01 PM GMT+1 >>>> >>>> To: Council GNSO >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Councillors >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Council approved at the meeting on 11 December 2014, Voting Outside a >>>> Meeting, as described in Section 4.10 in the revised GNSO Operating >>>> Procedures >>>> for the Council?s reply comment on the Nominating Committee Recommendations >>>> from the Board Working Group. >>>> >>>> The proposed timeline for this vote is: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. 31 December 2014 23:59 UTC Final Council reply comment on the >>>> Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group submitted >>>> to the Council mailing list. >>>> Tony Holmes to hold the pen on refining the comment >>>> >>> ions-02dec14-en.pdf> up to 31 December 2014. >>>> >>>> 2. Voting by electronic ballot: >>>> Voting Opens Saturday, 3 January 2015 >>>> >>>> Voting Closes on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC. >>>> If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me >>>> know so that alternate arrangements can be made. >>>> >>>> 3. 9 January 2015 Comments submitted to the public comment forum >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. All Council members, except the non-voting Nominating Committee >>>> Appointee are eligible to vote. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. 10. 2 >>>> Determination; Notice. Voting outside a meeting may only occur when all of >>>> the following conditions are met: >>>> >>>> a. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, >>>> that the issue will have been adequately discussed and sufficient time >>>> given to each Stakeholder Group and Constituency to consider the issue by >>>> the time the vote is called; >>>> >>>> b. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council >>>> members, that the Council?s regular meeting schedule would make it >>>> difficult to resolve the issue without scheduling an extra meeting and this >>>> would be impractical in light of the circumstances at that time; >>>> >>>> c. No Councilor objects to the vote being taken outside a >>>> regularly scheduled Council meeting; and >>>> >>>> d. The GNSO Chair provides at least seven (7) calendar days? >>>> advance notice of the vote, along with notice of the beginning and ending >>>> day and hour of the voting period (in UTC), which period shall not be less >>>> than four (4) calendar days. >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. 10.3.1 >>>> Guidelines for Voting Outside a Meeting >>>> >>>> As with votes taken during a regularly scheduled GNSO Council meeting, all >>>> votes taken outside a meeting will: >>>> >>>> a. Be open (i.e., not by secret ballot); >>>> >>>> b. Allow for the inclusion of voting statements in accordance with Section >>>> 4.3.2 of these Operating Procedures; and >>>> >>>> c. Have their outcomes published and recorded, with accompanying voter >>>> statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping. These >>>> items >>>> >>>> are to be prepared and approved in accordance with Section 3.5 of these >>>> Operating Procedures, except that the relevant time period shall commence >>>> with the ending of the voting period. >>>> >>>> 4.10.3.2 Voting outside a meeting should normally be by electronic means. >>>> Methods used to transmit and record votes taken outside of meetings shall >>>> be authenticated and verifiable using the same criteria and applying the >>>> same standards as those used for absentee ballots under Section 4.4.3 of >>>> these Operating Procedures. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Glen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> GNSO Secretariat >>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>>> http://gnso.icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Jan 6 23:39:01 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 23:39:01 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <4CC51C26-FB23-43F0-BDE4-359AE2986142@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B670EF4@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B686A48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B68DD12@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B696F23@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Julie. This background is very much appreciated. I look forward to reconvening on January 20. In the meantime, could you please provide all SCI members (including me) with the Working Text of the Westlake Group in relation to the GNSO Review? I think this is something that SCI members should read before our call on January 20. Lori and I will be working on the draft letter to Council and will send it in advance of the call along with a proposed agenda. Separately, I would appreciate a recap of the duties of the Chair in relation to the conduct of meetings, e.g. starting the recording, asking for update of SOIs, etc. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D029CF.465C5650] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 9:01 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Anne, If there are no objections received today from SCI members, the GNSO Secretariat will schedule the next meeting for 20 January at the usual time. As to the letter, there is no template. In general there have been two ways that the SCI has communicated to the Council. The most common is for the liaison to send a motion to the Council for consideration concerning revisions to the GNSO Operating Procedures, as was done most recently by Avri for the revisions that were approved at the Council meeting on 13 November. The motion was sent in an email message from Avri to the Council list. The second way the SCI has contacted the Council is also via email when the SCI has taken up an issue, but has determined that no changes to the Operating Procedures are warranted, or to recommend other changes not related to the Operating Procedures. This was how the changes to the SCI Charter were addressed in 2013. In that case Ron sent an email to the Council Chair with the draft revised Charter as an attachment and a short description of the changes. Recommendations on deferral of motions and raising an issue, which were addressed by the SCI at the Council's request in 2012, did not require changes to the Operating Procedures. In those cases Wolf-Ulrich sent emails to the Council Chair providing a brief background on the issue and indicating how the SCI recommended that it should be addressed. For the wording contained in these emails see the text in quotes under each issue heading on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. With respect to the SCI suggestion for a full review of WG Consensus levels, I don't think there was any prior correspondence to the Council. I cannot find any from the archives either from Ron or Avri. Mary Wong did record this suggestion on the Wiki, I think as a reflection of the SCI conversations at its meeting in LA in October if I recall correctly. Thus, in this instance I think that you could draft an email asking for Council guidance on the 2015 work of the SCI and including the suggested possible issues. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 3:49 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, ">" > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Julie, I think your suggestion for January 20 makes perfect sense. I will undertake to draft a letter requesting further guidance to SCI from Council. I have notes from both Greg and Amr with respect to this and have noted your reference to the items listed in the wiki related to (1) review of WG Consensus Levels and (2) a full review of GNSO Operating Procedures. I note that SCI itself is a "group chartered by the GNSO Council" and that it raised the question of review of WG Consensus Levels with Council last year after working on the "Consensus Against" issue. So let's schedule the January 20 meeting in hopes that more members may attend and I will draft a letter before that listing the items raised by Greg and Amr in previous e-mails as well as the WG Consensus Level review for Council's consideration. Many thanks Julie, Glen, et all for your guidance. I certainly do think that we want to ask Council to give Avri 15 minutes in Singapore. I think this means our letter must be final before February 1 and that seems reasonable. Julie, could you please send me a template for sending a letter to Jonathan from SCI based on previous letters sent by Ron and Wolf-Ulrich? I look forward to talking with the members on January 20. Thank you and Happy New Year to all who celebrate it!, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D029CF.465C5650] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:23 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Dear Anne and SCI members, As there is a conflict on the 13th, could we consider the following Tuesday, 20 January? Perhaps a letter could be drafted in advance and reviewed on the list ahead of the meeting. Please advise how you would like staff to proceed. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 6:53 AM To: Julie Hedlund >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >, ">" > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Dear Julie, In view of the conflict with the NCPH Intercessional, please confirm whether you would like us to proceed with scheduling the next SCI meeting on 13 January 2015? Thank you very much. Wishing you all a very happy and successful New Year! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From: Julie Hedlund Sent: mercredi 31 d?cembre 2014 17:33 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Dear Anne and SCI members, The GNSO Secretariat can assist in scheduling an SCI call at the usual time of 2000 UTC on Tuesday, 13 January. The staff and Secretariat also can assist in requesting 15 minutes for Avri on the GNSO Council schedule in Singapore to discuss the SCI direction for 2015. Whether the time will be granted will depend of course on the Council's workload, which will as noted be taken up largely with issues relating to the IANA stewardship transition and accountability. With respect to the Charter, please refer to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. Please note in particular the General and Working Method sections. In the General section the following sentence indicates the scope of the SCI's remit: "The SCI is also responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion." As per the Charter the GNSO Council generally has requested that the SCI should address specific issues relating to its processes and procedures (rather than the SCI making the request to the Council). See the work completed by the SCI since its inception: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. It has nonetheless been noted on the SCI wiki as of October 2014 that the SCI has suggested to the Council that it take up the following two issues: 1) a full review of the Working Group Consensus Levels and 2) a full review of the GNSO Operating Procedures. See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49357334. Also as noted by Mary Wong on 18 December, prior to assigning new issues to the SCI it is possible that the Council may wish to consider the results of the first report of the GNSO review, as well its tasks with respect to the IANA stewardship transition and accountability. I hope you all have a Happy New Year! Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:30 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Amr Elsadr' >, ">" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group SCI members and Julie, My goal would be for SCI to have a letter to GNSO composed in time for Avri to present it in Singapore GNSO working sessions as a menu of items which GNSO Council could choose from to provide assignments to SCI. My question is whether a January 13 call would be sufficient time for SCI to have a discussion leading to preparation of the letter to Council based on projects we have considered in the past and that Ron and Greg have outlined. I do not think that SCI work should stop due to the IANA transition issues. One question might be how SCI can best help GNSO in addressing these issues. For example, if SCI reviews PDP consensus levels on a more thorough basis than previously examined, would that improve ICANN Accountability as it relates to the transition? Do these consensus levels or any other aspect of the PDP process have a significant impact on accountability? So from my point of view, Question 1 is: Can we schedule a call as late as January 13 and still get Avri 15 minutes on the GNSO Council schedule to discuss SCI direction for 2015? Question 2: What work is within SCI's Charter that will assist Council the most in relation to the IANA transition and overall ICANN Accountability? I would propose to discuss these questions in a January 13 call to be scheduled by Julie. As to whether we can get on the Council schedule in working sessions in Singapore for this purpose, I think we need to rely on Avri and Glen for that purpose. Avri, your thoughts? Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D029CF.465C5650] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:09 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Hi Anne, I've attached Ron's slides from LA. Please also see the wiki on the Work Completed/In Progress at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. Staff will update it to reflect the items recently approved by the Council. If the SCI wants to give the Council time to consider a letter at their meeting on the 15th as a courtesy you might want to have it to the Council by January 5th, which is the deadline for motions and documents. However, this may not be possible since it wouldn't allow time for SCI members to discuss a letter during a call, and members also are likely to be out during the next two weeks for holidays so they may not be able to make much progress on the list. In addition, the ICANN offices are closed beginning at Noon on 24 December through Friday, 2 January 2015. They will reopen on 5 January. We can certainly schedule a meeting at the usual time on the 6th to kick things off. Let us know if you would like us to schedule a meeting on the 6th. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:38 PM To: 'Amr Elsadr' >, ">" > Cc: Julie Hedlund > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Thanks Amr. This new provision looks quite useful in these circumstances. Nice to know. I'll be out of the office all next week but am looking at the correspondence between you and Greg. Ron and Julie, could the two of you recap the projects Ron presented to Council as possibilities for SCI work during the meeting in LA? If possible I would appreciate receiving a copy of Ron's slides. Finally, Julie, does it make sense for us to schedule the first SCI call to review a draft letter to Council on January 13 or does it need to be January 6? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D029CF.465C5650] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.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, December 17, 2014 2:05 PM To: > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Hi, Just thought that it'd be interesting for folks here to know that one of our recent projects is being put to use. :) Thanks. Amr Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group Date: December 17, 2014 at 9:28:01 PM GMT+1 To: Council GNSO > Dear Councillors The Council approved at the meeting on 11 December 2014, Voting Outside a Meeting, as described in Section 4.10 in the revised GNSO Operating Procedures for the Council's reply comment on the Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group. The proposed timeline for this vote is: 1. 31 December 2014 23:59 UTC Final Council reply comment on the Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group submitted to the Council mailing list. Tony Holmes to hold the pen on refining the comment up to 31 December 2014. 2. Voting by electronic ballot: Voting Opens Saturday, 3 January 2015 Voting Closes on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC. If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me know so that alternate arrangements can be made. 3. 9 January 2015 Comments submitted to the public comment forum 4. All Council members, except the non-voting Nominating Committee Appointee are eligible to vote. 4. 10. 2 Determination; Notice. Voting outside a meeting may only occur when all of the following conditions are met: a. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, that the issue will have been adequately discussed and sufficient time given to each Stakeholder Group and Constituency to consider the issue by the time the vote is called; b. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, that the Council's regular meeting schedule would make it difficult to resolve the issue without scheduling an extra meeting and this would be impractical in light of the circumstances at that time; c. No Councilor objects to the vote being taken outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting; and d. The GNSO Chair provides at least seven (7) calendar days' advance notice of the vote, along with notice of the beginning and ending day and hour of the voting period (in UTC), which period shall not be less than four (4) calendar days. 4. 10.3.1 Guidelines for Voting Outside a Meeting As with votes taken during a regularly scheduled GNSO Council meeting, all votes taken outside a meeting will: a. Be open (i.e., not by secret ballot); b. Allow for the inclusion of voting statements in accordance with Section 4.3.2 of these Operating Procedures; and c. Have their outcomes published and recorded, with accompanying voter statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping. These items are to be prepared and approved in accordance with Section 3.5 of these Operating Procedures, except that the relevant time period shall commence with the ending of the voting period. 4.10.3.2 Voting outside a meeting should normally be by electronic means. Methods used to transmit and record votes taken outside of meetings shall be authenticated and verifiable using the same criteria and applying the same standards as those used for absentee ballots under Section 4.4.3 of these Operating Procedures. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 7 00:13:53 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 00:13:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B696F23@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <4CC51C26-FB23-43F0-BDE4-359AE2986142@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B670EF4@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B686A48@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B68DD12@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B696F23@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, The Westlake First Report has not been released. Staff will forward it once it is available. I think it is due later in January so I am not sure if it will be available before 20 January. With respect to Working Group Chairs it will be helpful for you to review the Working Group Guidelines, Section 2.2.1 Chair at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-13nov14-en.pdf. Lori may wish to review Section 2.2.2 Co-Chairs or Vice-Chairs. In general, at the start of the meeting the Chair will ask staff to initiate the call, after which the GNSO Secretariat staff will ask the Operator to start the recording. Once the recording is started the Secretariat staff will announce the start of the call and will do a roll call. The roll call is the first item on the agenda, which generally is constructed as follows: 1. Roll Call (2 mins.) 2. Statements of Interest (2 mins.) 3. ?[items of business] (x mins.) 4. ? Any other business (4 mins.) The agenda is posted in the Adobe Connect room during the meeting. After asking if there are changes to Statements of Interest (if any) the Chair runs through the agenda and asks if there are any other items of business to add. Then the Chair will move through the agenda. Usually each agenda item is assigned an amount of time to ensure that everything is covered in the time allotted for the meeting. I hope this is helpful, but please let staff know if you have further questions. The primary staff supporting the SCI are Mary Wong and me. You and Lori may also consider whether you wish staff to schedule a pre-meeting call (say on Monday the 19th) to preview the agenda. This could be done in 30 minutes or less. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 6:39 PM To: Julie Hedlund , "" Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group > Thanks Julie. This background is very much appreciated. I look forward to > reconvening on January 20. In the meantime, could you please provide all SCI > members (including me) with the Working Text of the Westlake Group in relation > to the GNSO Review? I think this is something that SCI members should read > before our call on January 20. > > Lori and I will be working on the draft letter to Council and will send it in > advance of the call along with a proposed agenda. > > Separately, I would appreciate a recap of the duties of the Chair in relation > to the conduct of meetings, e.g. starting the recording, asking for update of > SOIs, etc. > > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 9:01 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; > Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting > outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > > Anne, > > > > If there are no objections received today from SCI members, the GNSO > Secretariat will schedule the next meeting for 20 January at the usual time. > > > > As to the letter, there is no template. In general there have been two ways > that the SCI has communicated to the Council. The most common is for the > liaison to send a motion to the Council for consideration concerning revisions > to the GNSO Operating Procedures, as was done most recently by Avri for the > revisions that were approved at the Council meeting on 13 November. The > motion was sent in an email message from Avri to the Council list. > > > > The second way the SCI has contacted the Council is also via email when the > SCI has taken up an issue, but has determined that no changes to the Operating > Procedures are warranted, or to recommend other changes not related to the > Operating Procedures. This was how the changes to the SCI Charter were > addressed in 2013. In that case Ron sent an email to the Council Chair with > the draft revised Charter as an attachment and a short description of the > changes. Recommendations on deferral of motions and raising an issue, which > were addressed by the SCI at the Council's request in 2012, did not require > changes to the Operating Procedures. In those cases Wolf-Ulrich sent emails > to the Council Chair providing a brief background on the issue and indicating > how the SCI recommended that it should be addressed. For the wording > contained in these emails see the text in quotes under each issue heading on > the wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. > > > > With respect to the SCI suggestion for a full review of WG Consensus levels, I > don't think there was any prior correspondence to the Council. I cannot find > any from the archives either from Ron or Avri. Mary Wong did record this > suggestion on the Wiki, I think as a reflection of the SCI conversations at > its meeting in LA in October if I recall correctly. > > > > Thus, in this instance I think that you could draft an email asking for > Council guidance on the 2015 work of the SCI and including the suggested > possible issues. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > > From: , Anne > Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 3:49 PM > To: Julie Hedlund , > "" > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting > outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee > Recommendations from the Board Working Group > > >> >> Julie, >> I think your suggestion for January 20 makes perfect sense. I will >> undertake to draft a letter requesting further guidance to SCI from Council. >> I have notes from both Greg and Amr with respect to this and have noted your >> reference to the items listed in the wiki related to (1) review of WG >> Consensus Levels and (2) a full review of GNSO Operating Procedures. I note >> that SCI itself is a ?group chartered by the GNSO Council? and that it raised >> the question of review of WG Consensus Levels with Council last year after >> working on the ?Consensus Against? issue. >> >> So let?s schedule the January 20 meeting in hopes that more members may >> attend and I will draft a letter before that listing the items raised by Greg >> and Amr in previous e-mails as well as the WG Consensus Level review for >> Council?s consideration. >> >> Many thanks Julie, Glen, et all for your guidance. I certainly do think that >> we want to ask Council to give Avri 15 minutes in Singapore. I think this >> means our letter must be final before February 1 and that seems reasonable. >> >> Julie, could you please send me a template for sending a letter to Jonathan >> from SCI based on previous letters sent by Ron and Wolf-Ulrich? I look >> forward to talking with the members on January 20. >> >> Thank you and Happy New Year to all who celebrate it!, >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:23 AM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >> >> >> Dear Anne and SCI members, >> >> >> >> As there is a conflict on the 13th, could we consider the following Tuesday, >> 20 January? Perhaps a letter could be drafted in advance and reviewed on the >> list ahead of the meeting. >> >> >> >> Please advise how you would like staff to proceed. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> >> >> >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Date: Friday, January 2, 2015 6:53 AM >> To: Julie Hedlund , "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >> , "" >> >> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >> >> >>> >>> Dear Julie, >>> >>> In view of the conflict with the NCPH Intercessional, please confirm whether >>> you would like us to proceed with scheduling the next SCI meeting on 13 >>> January 2015? >>> >>> Thank you very much. >>> Wishing you all a very happy and successful New Year! >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>> GNSO Secretariat >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>> http://gnso.icann.org >>> >>> >>> From: Julie Hedlund >>> Sent: mercredi 31 d?cembre 2014 17:33 >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; >>> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>> >>> >>> Dear Anne and SCI members, >>> >>> >>> >>> The GNSO Secretariat can assist in scheduling an SCI call at the usual time >>> of 2000 UTC on Tuesday, 13 January. The staff and Secretariat also can >>> assist in requesting 15 minutes for Avri on the GNSO Council schedule in >>> Singapore to discuss the SCI direction for 2015. Whether the time will be >>> granted will depend of course on the Council's workload, which will as noted >>> be taken up largely with issues relating to the IANA stewardship transition >>> and accountability. >>> >>> >>> >>> With respect to the Charter, please refer to the wiki at: >>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. Please note in >>> particular the General and Working Method sections. In the General section >>> the following sentence indicates the scope of the SCI's remit: "The SCI is >>> also responsible for considering requests concerning issues related to the >>> GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group guidelines that >>> have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the >>> GNSO Council as needing discussion." As per the Charter the GNSO Council >>> generally has requested that the SCI should address specific issues relating >>> to its processes and procedures (rather than the SCI making the request to >>> the Council). See the work completed by the SCI since its inception: >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. It has >>> nonetheless been noted on the SCI wiki as of October 2014 that the SCI has >>> suggested to the Council that it take up the following two issues: 1) a >>> full review of the Working Group Consensus Levels and 2) a full review of >>> the GNSO Operating Procedures. See: >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49357334. Also as >>> noted by Mary Wong on 18 December, prior to assigning new issues to the SCI >>> it is possible that the Council may wish to consider the results of the >>> first report of the GNSO review, as well its tasks with respect to the IANA >>> stewardship transition and accountability. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope you all have a Happy New Year! >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> >>> >>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>> >>> >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:30 PM >>> To: Julie Hedlund , 'Amr Elsadr' >>> , "" >>> >>> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>> >>> >>>> >>>> SCI members and Julie, >>>> >>>> My goal would be for SCI to have a letter to GNSO composed in time for Avri >>>> to present it in Singapore GNSO working sessions as a menu of items which >>>> GNSO Council could choose from to provide assignments to SCI. My question >>>> is whether a January 13 call would be sufficient time for SCI to have a >>>> discussion leading to preparation of the letter to Council based on >>>> projects we have considered in the past and that Ron and Greg have >>>> outlined. >>>> >>>> I do not think that SCI work should stop due to the IANA transition issues. >>>> One question might be how SCI can best help GNSO in addressing these >>>> issues. For example, if SCI reviews PDP consensus levels on a more >>>> thorough basis than previously examined, would that improve ICANN >>>> Accountability as it relates to the transition? Do these consensus levels >>>> or any other aspect of the PDP process have a significant impact on >>>> accountability? >>>> >>>> So from my point of view, >>>> >>>> Question 1 is: Can we schedule a call as late as January 13 and still get >>>> Avri 15 minutes on the GNSO Council schedule to discuss SCI direction for >>>> 2015? >>>> >>>> Question 2: What work is within SCI?s Charter that will assist Council the >>>> most in relation to the IANA transition and overall ICANN Accountability? >>>> >>>> I would propose to discuss these questions in a January 13 call to be >>>> scheduled by Julie. As to whether we can get on the Council schedule in >>>> working sessions in Singapore for this purpose, I think we need to rely on >>>> Avri and Glen for that purpose. Avri, your thoughts? >>>> >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:09 PM >>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Anne, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I've attached Ron's slides from LA. Please also see the wiki on the Work >>>> Completed/In Progress at: >>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. Staff >>>> will update it to reflect the items recently approved by the Council. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If the SCI wants to give the Council time to consider a letter at their >>>> meeting on the 15th as a courtesy you might want to have it to the Council >>>> by January 5th, which is the deadline for motions and documents. However, >>>> this may not be possible since it wouldn't allow time for SCI members to >>>> discuss a letter during a call, and members also are likely to be out >>>> during the next two weeks for holidays so they may not be able to make much >>>> progress on the list. In addition, the ICANN offices are closed beginning >>>> at Noon on 24 December through Friday, 2 January 2015. They will reopen on >>>> 5 January. We can certainly schedule a meeting at the usual time on the 6th >>>> to kick things off. Let us know if you would like us to schedule a meeting >>>> on the 6th. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: , Anne >>>> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 6:38 PM >>>> To: 'Amr Elsadr' , "" >>>> >>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Amr. This new provision looks quite useful in these >>>>> circumstances. Nice to know. >>>>> >>>>> I?ll be out of the office all next week but am looking at the >>>>> correspondence between you and Greg. >>>>> >>>>> Ron and Julie, could the two of you recap the projects Ron presented to >>>>> Council as possibilities for SCI work during the meeting in LA? If >>>>> possible I would appreciate receiving a copy of Ron?s slides. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, Julie, does it make sense for us to schedule the first SCI call >>>>> to review a draft letter to Council on January 13 or does it need to be >>>>> January 6? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.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, December 17, 2014 2:05 PM >>>>> To: >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fwd: [council] Notification of voting >>>>> outside a Council meeting: Council reply comment Nominating Committee >>>>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just thought that it?d be interesting for folks here to know that one of >>>>> our recent projects is being put to use. :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Amr >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [council] Notification of voting outside a Council meeting: >>>>> Council reply comment Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board >>>>> Working Group >>>>> >>>>> Date: December 17, 2014 at 9:28:01 PM GMT+1 >>>>> >>>>> To: Council GNSO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Councillors >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Council approved at the meeting on 11 December 2014, Voting Outside a >>>>> Meeting, as described in Section 4.10 in the revised GNSO Operating >>>>> Procedures >>>>> for the Council?s reply comment on the Nominating Committee >>>>> Recommendations from the Board Working Group. >>>>> >>>>> The proposed timeline for this vote is: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. 31 December 2014 23:59 UTC Final Council reply comment on the >>>>> Nominating Committee Recommendations from the Board Working Group >>>>> submitted to the Council mailing list. >>>>> Tony Holmes to hold the pen on refining the comment >>>>> >>>> tions-02dec14-en.pdf> up to 31 December 2014. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Voting by electronic ballot: >>>>> Voting Opens Saturday, 3 January 2015 >>>>> >>>>> Voting Closes on Tuesday 6 January 2015 at 23:59 UTC. >>>>> If you foresee any connectivity issues during this period, please let me >>>>> know so that alternate arrangements can be made. >>>>> >>>>> 3. 9 January 2015 Comments submitted to the public comment forum >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4. All Council members, except the non-voting Nominating Committee >>>>> Appointee are eligible to vote. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4. 10. 2 >>>>> Determination; Notice. Voting outside a meeting may only occur when all of >>>>> the following conditions are met: >>>>> >>>>> a. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council members, >>>>> that the issue will have been adequately discussed and sufficient time >>>>> given to each Stakeholder Group and Constituency to consider the issue by >>>>> the time the vote is called; >>>>> >>>>> b. The GNSO Chair determines, after discussion with Council >>>>> members, that the Council?s regular meeting schedule would make it >>>>> difficult to resolve the issue without scheduling an extra meeting and >>>>> this would be impractical in light of the circumstances at that time; >>>>> >>>>> c. No Councilor objects to the vote being taken outside a >>>>> regularly scheduled Council meeting; and >>>>> >>>>> d. The GNSO Chair provides at least seven (7) calendar days? >>>>> advance notice of the vote, along with notice of the beginning and ending >>>>> day and hour of the voting period (in UTC), which period shall not be less >>>>> than four (4) calendar days. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4. 10.3.1 >>>>> Guidelines for Voting Outside a Meeting >>>>> >>>>> As with votes taken during a regularly scheduled GNSO Council meeting, all >>>>> votes taken outside a meeting will: >>>>> >>>>> a. Be open (i.e., not by secret ballot); >>>>> >>>>> b. Allow for the inclusion of voting statements in accordance with Section >>>>> 4.3.2 of these Operating Procedures; and >>>>> >>>>> c. Have their outcomes published and recorded, with accompanying voter >>>>> statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping. >>>>> These items >>>>> >>>>> are to be prepared and approved in accordance with Section 3.5 of these >>>>> Operating Procedures, except that the relevant time period shall commence >>>>> with the ending of the voting period. >>>>> >>>>> 4.10.3.2 Voting outside a meeting should normally be by electronic means. >>>>> Methods used to transmit and record votes taken outside of meetings shall >>>>> be authenticated and verifiable using the same criteria and applying the >>>>> same standards as those used for absentee ballots under Section 4.4.3 of >>>>> these Operating Procedures. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Glen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>> GNSO Secretariat >>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>>>> http://gnso.icann.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Sat Jan 17 00:04:33 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 00:04:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] 20 January Meeting Agenda and Draft SCI Letter to the GNSO Council Message-ID: Dear SCI members, Please see the agenda below from Anne and Lori for the SCI meeting on 20 January. In addition, please review the attached draft letter, which will be discussed during the meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 20 January SCI Meeting Agenda 1. Roll Call/SOI Updates 2. Each member to summarize briefly his/her reasons for being involved with SCI 3. Discussion of ?Immediate Review? and ?Periodic Review? as contained in SCI Charter 4. Discussion of draft letter to GNSO Council regarding 2015 work plan 5. AOB 6. Scheduling of next meeting (none in Singapore ? Avri to brief GNSO Council) 7. Adjournment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI - Letter to Robinson 22 JAN 2015.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 30460 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 lori.schulman at ascd.org Tue Jan 20 20:11:12 2015 From: lori.schulman at ascd.org (Lori Schulman) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:11:12 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Message-ID: Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman * General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman at ascd.org [cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0] This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2186 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Jan 20 21:16:28 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:16:28 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6AEEF0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne [cid:image002.gif at 01D034BB.ADF1D460] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org [cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0] This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2186 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Wed Jan 21 00:10:23 2015 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:10:23 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 20 January 2015 Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 at 20:00 UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20jan15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jan (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Greg Shatan - Intellectual Property Constituency( IPC) - Alternate Anne Aikman Scalese - Intellectual Property Constituency( IPC) - Primary- Chair Amr Elsadr - Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) - Primary Stefania Milan - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) - Alternate Lori Schulman - Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC Constituency- Primary- Vice Chair Apologies: none ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Glen de Saint Gery 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 20 January 2015 Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the SCI Working Group call on the 20th January 2015 Amr Elsadr:Hi. Apologies about being late. Anne Aikman-Scalese:No problem Amr - glad you are here Angie Graves:Apologies for joining late Mary Wong:Regarding the NCPH letter, I believe it's Tony Holmes that was holding the pen/control. Julie Hedlund:@Mary, yes that is my understanding too. Angie Graves:2015 Amr Elsadr:Lori, A good place to find transcripts for previous meetings is on the GNSO calendar here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Amr Elsadr:@Anne: +1 For the past two years, I've never experienced a partisan problem here. Anne Aikman-Scalese:me either Amr and that is just great from my point of view. Lori Schulman:Amr, I just sent the link to the intersessional transcipts, etc. Lori Schulman:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Amr Elsadr:Right. Sorry. I joined the call in the middle of the conversation, and thought you were talking about SCI call transcripts. Lori Schulman:No worries. Stefania Milan:can you here me? Amr Elsadr:No. :) Stefania Milan:ok, having problems with the audio of my laptop Terri Agnew:@Stefania, we are unable to hear you. Private chat me if you would liek a dial out on telephone Stefania Milan:i think i am on, the mic icon turned green Terri Agnew:@Stefania, you mic is active Amr Elsadr:Mary was the NCUC primary when I first joined this committee as the NCUC alternate. :) Ron A:Thank you Anne. Amr Elsadr:Will miss you here Ron. Mary Wong:Congrats to Ron and thanks for your leadership - yay for the NomCom Chair-Elect! Ron A:Too many hearts and flowers... ;o) Thanks all! Mary Wong:Don't be a stranger now!!! Ron A:;o) Mary Wong:@Amr, yup, I've been here with the SIC a LONG time :) Amr Elsadr:The SIC is another committee, Mary. ;-) Greg Shatan:Mary, are you SIC of SCI? Mary Wong:Ack! Just saw that Freudian slip - been thinking about the GNSO Review!!! Mary Wong:@Greg, no comment, hahah Amr Elsadr::-D Lori Schulman:+1 Thank you to Ron. He made me feel so welcomed. Amr Elsadr:Isn't this language from the SCI charter? Mary Wong:@Amr, yes - the one last approved by the GNSO Council in Oct 2013 Greg Shatan:Mary, that was very "staff-y" of you... :-) Julie Hedlund:@Angie: Here is the work completed by the SCI thus far from the wiki: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=49350790. Ron A:@ Juliw: I'm getting page not found. Greg Shatan:You will need to remove the period at the very end, or else you will get page not found. Ron A:Thanks Greg. Greg Shatan:Pretty good for a "policy guy".... :-) Angie Graves:Thank you, Julie! Mary Wong:@Greg, I'm still learning how to be staffy ... rather than professory or ex-Councilory :) Amr Elsadr:I always interpreted the periodic review to be a review of the GNSO operating procedures, meaning that we can recommend SCI projects to the GNSO council and don't need to wait for the council to ask us to pick something up. Mary Wong:@Amr, yes, to a point - in that the Council will decide whether to act, and if so, whether it should be an SCI project or some other group Ron A:That is my understanding as well, Anne. Lori Schulman:Mary - you are staffy because you are professory or excouncilery -- not sure how you would separate good traits. :0 Mary Wong:@Lori, awww thanks Julie Hedlund:All -- I have unsynced the letter so you can move it in your Adobe Connect room. Mary Wong:FWIW the charter tries to find the balance between the GNSO Council always "controlling" what the SCI does, and the SCI going off on a "frolic of its own" on projects Lori Schulman:Yes, I would imagine that SCI would need some latitude to address issues that it identifies Lori Schulman:but not serve as the procedure police Mary Wong:@Lori, yep, exactly Amr Elsadr:@Lori: Policing the procedures is technically the council's job. :) Lori Schulman:I lost audio Terri Agnew:@Anne , we are no longer hearing you Lori Schulman:Call in is dead Lori Schulman:now the sound is back Amr Elsadr:I am in favor of the first two suggestions. Julie Hedlund:Anne was giving people time to read the letter -- so there was a pause. Lori Schulman:LOL. Didn't even hear breathing. Amr Elsadr:The action items including the two regarding the SCI are posted here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items Julie Hedlund:@Anne: See items 5 and 6 in the link above. Note that the items are on hold. These are not motions that the Council has acted on, as Mary notes. Julie Hedlund:@Anne: These are posted online. I'll send the link. Greg Shatan:I believe Avri is in Frankfurt or on the way back. Amr Elsadr:The minutes of GNSO council meetings are not prepared quick enough to be too useful as a method of notification. I would agree with Mary that it is easier to have the liaison notify the SCI of updates. Julie Hedlund:Also, one can follow the transcripts on the GNSO calendar Julie Hedlund:Usually they are posted prior to the next Council meeting. Julie Hedlund:It may be simplest for the liaison to simply alert the SCI when the minutes are posted. Julie Hedlund:Or for members to check the schedule periodially. Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Julie - please support the group by sending the minutes when available. We should not ask Avri to do this given her schdule. Ron A:I agree that the Liaison would be best positioned to pass the minutes along. Mary Wong:@Anne, it's not that we don't want to do this; we do support a good many WGs, CWGs and committees and so we try to be consistent in our support approach to all. Julie Hedlund:@Anne, I will echo Mary. It is not that we do not want to do this, but it a matter of resources that all staff and managers would need to consider. Ron A:+1 Amr - transcripts/recordings are much quicker Anne Aikman-Scalese:Shall we add at the beginning of the third paragraph "SCI understands that GNSO Council has put two specific previous topics suggested for SCI work on hold pending receipt of the results of the GNSO Review". Nonetheless, this review may be available in Singapore and various possibilities for the 2015 SCI work plan include:" Amr Elsadr:Agree with Greg on all counts. Amr Elsadr:I would, as Greg suggested, postpone the review of the consensus levels after the GNSO review is done. I believe this is what we had planned at the time this came up. Ron A:Agree with revisions and plan Anne. Lori Schulman:I agree to the plan Mary Wong:Please let staff check on our availability before scheduling a meeting next week? Stefania Milan:Anne, I agree as well Amr Elsadr:We can do it on-list. Ron A:on list works for me Lori Schulman:I think the list is fine. Stefania Milan:on-list would work for me too Ron A:Well done Anne! Amr Elsadr:@Ron: +1 :) Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Lori Schulman:Thank you. Lori Schulman:Happy First Meeting/. Stefania Milan:bye and thanks! Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Angie Graves:Thanks! Mary Wong:Thanks, Anne and all! Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thank you everyone! -------------- 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 Jan 21 08:44:13 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:44:13 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6AEEF0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6AEEF0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <2197DEE23F9348738EF6523D6444A54F@WUKPC> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify thesender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rickert at anwaelte.de Wed Jan 21 09:32:19 2015 From: rickert at anwaelte.de (Thomas Rickert) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:32:19 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts In-Reply-To: <2197DEE23F9348738EF6523D6444A54F@WUKPC> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6AEEF0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <2197DEE23F9348738EF6523D6444A54F@WUKPC> Message-ID: <6B6B0338-E0F8-4A0B-9781-2EBC8F47C631@anwaelte.de> Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. > > Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. > > Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. > Anne > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > Dear All, > > Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > Lori > > Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 21 21:28:24 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:28:24 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts In-Reply-To: <6B6B0338-E0F8-4A0B-9781-2EBC8F47C631@anwaelte.de> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6AEEF0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <2197DEE23F9348738EF6523D6444A54F@WUKPC> <6B6B0338-E0F8-4A0B-9781-2EBC8F47C631@anwaelte.de> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6AFFA5@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Wolf-Ulrich and Thomas. We will be circulating a new draft based on our discussion yesterday. As you know, that discussion is available via MP3 file and transcript. We do not believe another call will be necessary but if you have concerns after reading the next draft, let us know. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03586.83A4CD90] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Thu Jan 22 19:07:22 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:07:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0363B.F7BC5670] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI - Letter to Robinson 26 JAN 2015 .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26823 bytes Desc: SCI - Letter to Robinson 26 JAN 2015 .docx URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 22 20:10:32 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:10:32 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on > Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please > supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. > > > > *Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 > minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to > present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will > not be meeting separately there.) > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 > Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben > >: > > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the > Frankfurt meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > *To:* 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie > Hedlund > ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > *Cc:* 'Glen de Saint G?ry' > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 > Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council > in accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. > > > > Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council > liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put > ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) > Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council > liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by > Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available > until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be > circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure > our letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for > Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well > before February 1. > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com > _** **| www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori > Schulman > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 > Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find > the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Thu Jan 22 21:01:53 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:01:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0364B.D7DBFCB0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Thu Jan 22 21:52:30 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:52:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the > mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we > can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do > that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de > Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know > we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken > during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course > faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a > positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to > pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not > supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I > also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted > not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I > do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had > accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted > notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. > But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this > issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew > the results of any reorganizational review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s SCI >> conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list >> prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >> >> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the >> schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to >> Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately >> there.) >> >> Thank you, >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >> Transcripts >> >> Same here. Sorry! >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Thomas >> >> >>> >>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : >>> >>> >>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt >>> meeting. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>> >>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund >>> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> >>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>> >>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>> Transcripts >>> >>> >>> >>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in >>> accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by >>> Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part >>> of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to >>> action taken by Council affecting its work. >>> >>> >>> >>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the >>> next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating >>> the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request >>> for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a >>> timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. >>> >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>> Transcripts >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the joint >>> letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>> >>> >>> >>> Lori >>> >>> >>> >>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 ? >>> Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>> >>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is >>> >>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or >>> >>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify >>> the >>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and >>> any >>> >>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus >>> free. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 22 23:52:18 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:52:18 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54C18D32.4010404@acm.org> Hi, > In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could > indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, As NCSG Primary, I do not support as is. > or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. For the reasons stated. Dropping #3 would be a necessary for me - this is not time to go messing with vote thresholds. Dropping #2 would be a nice to have but I would abstain. I understand the urge to go back and fix a suspected bug that got away. avri On 22-Jan-15 16:52, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Hi Anne, > > If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call > that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very > busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I > would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to > provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be > helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she > supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would > enable them to support it. > > Best regards, > Julie > > From: , Anne > > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM > To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas > Rickert' >, > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > Cc: Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de Saint G?ry > > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? > As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points > during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to > discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please > proceed accordingly? > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > ** > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council > Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being > included? I know we have not done one on the list and was > wondering if one had been taken during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will > of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have > participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I > might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on > #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus > levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the > point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. > So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, > I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and > has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to > include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason > to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not > understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time > as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based > on Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, > please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, > January 26. > > > > *Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting > 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore > for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to > attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _ | > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional > 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben > >: > > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after > the Frankfurt meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > *To:* 'Lori Schulman' > ; Julie Hedlund > ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > *Cc:* 'Glen de Saint G?ry' > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional > 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO > Council in accordance with comments received during > today?s meeting. > > > > Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council > liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters > were put ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for > this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the > function of Council liaison to provide SCI with > information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not > available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, > may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will > be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to > be sure our letter and request for time on the Council?s > work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely > fashion and preferably well before February 1. > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona > 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com > _ | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf > Of *Lori Schulman > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional > 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I > didn?t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 22 23:52:18 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:52:18 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54C18D32.8060202@acm.org> Hi, > In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could > indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, As NCSG Primary, I do not support as is. > or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. For the reasons stated. Dropping #3 would be a necessary for me - this is not time to go messing with vote thresholds. Dropping #2 would be a nice to have but I would abstain. I understand the urge to go back and fix a suspected bug that got away. avri On 22-Jan-15 16:52, Julie Hedlund wrote: > Hi Anne, > > If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call > that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very > busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I > would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to > provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be > helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she > supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would > enable them to support it. > > Best regards, > Julie > > From: , Anne > > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM > To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas > Rickert' >, > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > Cc: Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de Saint G?ry > > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? > As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points > during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to > discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please > proceed accordingly? > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > ** > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council > Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being > included? I know we have not done one on the list and was > wondering if one had been taken during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will > of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have > participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I > might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on > #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus > levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the > point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. > So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, > I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and > has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to > include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason > to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not > understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time > as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based > on Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, > please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, > January 26. > > > > *Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting > 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore > for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to > attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _ | > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional > 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben > >: > > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after > the Frankfurt meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > *To:* 'Lori Schulman' > ; Julie Hedlund > ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > *Cc:* 'Glen de Saint G?ry' > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional > 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO > Council in accordance with comments received during > today?s meeting. > > > > Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council > liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters > were put ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for > this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the > function of Council liaison to provide SCI with > information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not > available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, > may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will > be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to > be sure our letter and request for time on the Council?s > work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely > fashion and preferably well before February 1. > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona > 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com > _ | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf > Of *Lori Schulman > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional > 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I > didn?t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Fri Jan 23 18:33:00 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 18:33:00 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03700.57C76F40] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03700.57C76F40] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Fri Jan 23 19:01:23 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 19:01:23 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, I saw your request for the meeting the first time, so no need to emphasize it. I was simply suggesting a possible more expedient way to address consensus on the letter and still meet the deadline, particularly since members agreed at the last meeting to finalize the letter on the list. I have copied the GNSO Secretariat since they set up the calls. Of course they also are on this list, so in future if you have requests for meetings you can simply request that the Secretariat should set them up. However, in the notification I will also ask the Secretariat to request that members should RSVP by COB Monday, 26 January as to whether or not they can attend the call on Tuesday as this is very late notice to get a call on people's schedules. If there is not a quorum for a call on Tuesday then you can consider whether to cancel the call prior to the meeting. I suggest this as a courtesy to avoid canceling at the beginning of a call and so that people can take it off their schedules ahead of time. I'll note also that with respect to comments on the letter I think Avi is the only one who has commented either way, and you had given COB Monday as the deadline for comments. Thus, perhaps there may be other comments forthcoming. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Julie, > Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one > expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I > know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her > issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. > > PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would > appreciate your doing this today. > > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > Importance: High > > > Hi Anne, > > > > If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that > they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time > for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would > respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their > thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary > member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, > suggest changes that would enable them to support it. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM > To: 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund > , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > , Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > >> >> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the >> mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we >> can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do >> that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >> Thank you, >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de >> Saint G?ry >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> Hi, >> >> Belated apologies for missing the meeting. >> >> Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I >> know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken >> during the call. >> >> A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course >> faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. >> >> As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a >> positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to >> pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not >> supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I >> also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted >> not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I >> do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had >> accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include >> resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our >> recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking >> to reopen this issue. >> >> I can not support the letter as it stands. >> >> thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> >> I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew >> the results of any reorganizational review. >> >> On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s >>> SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the >>> list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >>> >>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the >>> schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to >>> Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately >>> there.) >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >>> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>> Transcripts >>> >>> Same here. Sorry! >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt >>>> meeting. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund >>>> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> >>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>>> >>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>> Transcripts >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in >>>> accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by >>>> Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part >>>> of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to >>>> action taken by Council affecting its work. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the >>>> next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating >>>> the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request >>>> for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a >>>> timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. >>>> >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>> Transcripts >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the joint >>>> letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lori >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 ? >>>> Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>>> >>>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is >>>> >>>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or >>>> >>>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify >>>> the >>>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and >>>> any >>>> >>>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus >>>> free. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gregshatanipc at gmail.com Fri Jan 23 19:04:24 2015 From: gregshatanipc at gmail.com (Greg Shatan) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:04:24 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg *Gregory S. Shatan * Partner | *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan at lawabel.com * *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com * *www.lawabel.com * On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Julie, > > Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no > one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As > far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that > addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the > deadline. > > > > PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I > would appreciate your doing this today. > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich > Knoben > *Cc:* Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > *Importance:* High > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that > they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time > for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would > respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide > their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each > primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, > or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > *From: *, Anne > *Date: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM > *To: *'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc: *Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund < > julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" < > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per > the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, > but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we > need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org ] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen > de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I > know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been > taken during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of > course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in > a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them > to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not > supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. > I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but > opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a > comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and > has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include > resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our > recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI > asking to reopen this issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we > knew the results of any reorganizational review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s > SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the > list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. > > > > *Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes > on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this > letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting > separately there.) > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *[image: > mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif]* > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 > Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : > > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt > meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > *To:* 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund > ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Cc:* 'Glen de Saint G?ry' > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 > Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in > accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. > > > > Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison*, staff > advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by > Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part > of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to > action taken by Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until > the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating > the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request > for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a > timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. > > Anne > > > > ** > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [ > mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & > Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the > joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > 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. > -------------- 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: SCI-LettertoRobinson26JAN2015.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19381 bytes Desc: not available URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Fri Jan 23 19:35:19 2015 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 19:35:19 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <51517803a53e41e1907024d0a7e66b66@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hello, We will send invite out shortly with call details. Kind regards, Terri Agnew From: owner-gnso-secs at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry; gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-secs] Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Anne, I saw your request for the meeting the first time, so no need to emphasize it. I was simply suggesting a possible more expedient way to address consensus on the letter and still meet the deadline, particularly since members agreed at the last meeting to finalize the letter on the list. I have copied the GNSO Secretariat since they set up the calls. Of course they also are on this list, so in future if you have requests for meetings you can simply request that the Secretariat should set them up. However, in the notification I will also ask the Secretariat to request that members should RSVP by COB Monday, 26 January as to whether or not they can attend the call on Tuesday as this is very late notice to get a call on people's schedules. If there is not a quorum for a call on Tuesday then you can consider whether to cancel the call prior to the meeting. I suggest this as a courtesy to avoid canceling at the beginning of a call and so that people can take it off their schedules ahead of time. I'll note also that with respect to comments on the letter I think Avi is the only one who has commented either way, and you had given COB Monday as the deadline for comments. Thus, perhaps there may be other comments forthcoming. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org ; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. _____ 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. _____ 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. _____ 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. _____ 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. -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Fri Jan 23 23:00:31 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:00:31 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ?a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures?: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 ? an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review ? at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council?s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. 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: Greg Shatan Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" Cc: Julie Hedlund , Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting > will further inspire us to do so.) > > In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also > available as an editable Google Doc at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQ > U/edit?usp=sharing > > In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" > for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year > any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that > items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, > I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual > Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion > to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). > > If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out > and give ourselves back an hour of our time. > > I look forward to your responses. > > Greg > > Gregory S. Shatan > > Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab > > 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 > > Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 > > Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 > > gsshatan at lawabel.com > > ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > www.lawabel.com > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: >> Julie, >> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no >> one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far >> as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her >> issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. >> >> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would >> appreciate your doing this today. >> >> Thank you, >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> Importance: High >> >> >> >> Hi Anne, >> >> >> >> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that >> they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time >> for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would >> respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their >> thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary >> member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, >> suggest changes that would enable them to support it. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> From: , Anne >> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM >> To: 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> Cc: Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund >> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> , Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the >>> mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but >>> we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need >>> to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de >>> Saint G?ry >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Belated apologies for missing the meeting. >>> >>> Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I >>> know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been >>> taken during the call. >>> >>> A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course >>> faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. >>> >>> As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a >>> positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to >>> pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not >>> supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. >>> I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but >>> opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a >>> comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and >>> has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include >>> resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our >>> recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking >>> to reopen this issue. >>> >>> I can not support the letter as it stands. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew >>> the results of any reorganizational review. >>> >>> On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s >>>> SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the >>>> list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >>>> >>>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on >>>> the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this >>>> letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting >>>> separately there.) >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >>>> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>> Transcripts >>>> >>>> Same here. Sorry! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt >>>>> meeting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>>>> >>>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund >>>>> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>> Transcripts >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in >>>>> accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by >>>>> Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part >>>>> of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to >>>>> action taken by Council affecting its work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until >>>>> the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating >>>>> the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request >>>>> for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a >>>>> timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. >>>>> >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>> Transcripts >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the >>>>> joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lori >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>>>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 >>>>> ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>>>> >>>>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient >>>>> or >>>>> >>>>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>>>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please >>>>> notify the >>>>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message >>>>> and any >>>>> >>>>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus >>>>> free. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Sat Jan 24 18:38:23 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:38:23 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54C3E69F.7020601@acm.org> Hi, In my response to the upcoming call notifications, which I can't attend, I made the following remark that belongs here as opposed to there: > i think it will get handled on list in any case. We are close, > Mary's corrections on top of Greg's edits will probably take care of it. Thanks avri On 23-Jan-15 18:00, Mary Wong wrote: > Dear all, > > The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add > what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which > relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. > > - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the > potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on > hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. > It is therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as a possible > topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this > paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request > that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point > when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. > > - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of > the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three > latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly > agreed to consider the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus > Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be > conducted as part of ?a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO > Operating Procedures?: > see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 ? an exercise > which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO > Operating Procedures). > > - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought > the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur > independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review ? at > a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the > GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and > nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. > > - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we > therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately > reflect the GNSO Council?s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly > to the GNSO Review rather than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and > perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. > > We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order > to provide further context and background for those SCI members who > were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last > SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in > respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able > only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe > and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments > are helpful. > > 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: Greg Shatan > > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >, Lori Schulman > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de Saint G?ry > > > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a > scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) > > In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is > also available as an editable Google Doc > at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing > > In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as > "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the > question open of where in the year any of these items should be > handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should > await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've > tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the > actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language > put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual > Operating Procedures). > > If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send > this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. > > I look forward to your responses. > > Greg > > *Gregory S. Shatan * > > Partner|* **Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *666 Third Avenue **|**New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > */gsshatan at lawabel.com /* > > *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com > * > > */www.lawabel.com /* > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > wrote: > > Julie, > > Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, > there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed > changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the > primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the > list is going to result in meeting the deadline. > > > > PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS > REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > * > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > ** > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org > ] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO > Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > *Importance:* High > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on > the call that they would not be available next week and also > that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as > they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that > perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts > on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each > primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the > letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable > them to support it. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > *From: *, Anne > > *Date: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM > *To: *'Avri Doria' >, > 'Thomas Rickert' >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > *Cc: *Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de Saint G?ry > > > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO > Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to > discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement > on these points during the call, but we can certainly set > up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to > do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona > 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > * > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich > Knoben > *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO > Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are > being included? I know we have not done one on the list > and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my > report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter > the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have > participated in a positive consensus on these four items, > though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. > Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting > a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was > ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could > have done this before but opted not to. So while I would > understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not > understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and > has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on > whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have > been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But > since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to > reopen this issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example until > such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational > review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council > based on Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have > any comments, please supply them to the list prior to > 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. > > > > *Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are > requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working > Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter > to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not > be meeting separately there.) > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona > 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) > 520.879.4725 * > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _ | > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie > Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de > Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH > Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben > >: > > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late > after the Frankfurt meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > *To:* 'Lori Schulman' > ; Julie Hedlund > ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > *Cc:* 'Glen de Saint G?ry' > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH > Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter > to GNSO Council in accordance with comments > received during today?s meeting. > > > > Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as > Council liaison*, staff advised today that certain > SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by > Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also > advised that it is part of the function of Council > liaison to provide SCI with information as to > action taken by Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes > are not available until the next GNSO Council > meeting and as such, may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. > We will be circulating the redraft of the letter > soon. We want to be sure our letter and request > for time on the Council?s work schedule for > Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and > preferably well before February 1. > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, > Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) > 520.879.4725 * > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com > _ | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Lori Schulman > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH > Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week?s > intersessional. I didn?t find the joint letter > re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 > ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Mon Jan 26 19:16:22 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:16:22 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri's comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI 2. Discuss the nature of "periodic review" in the work of SCI. 3. Review draft of letter as revised. 4. AOB 5. Adjourn Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03961.E59D5A10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council's radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI's request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of "a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures": see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 - an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review - at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council's intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a "periodic review" by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. 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: Greg Shatan > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan at lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com www.lawabel.com On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03961.E59D5A10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03961.E59D5A10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Jan 26 19:35:39 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:35:39 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong , Greg Shatan Cc: Julie Hedlund , Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth > discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of > agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri?s comments. I am also quite > interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from > Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very > fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are > available, we will have a better final product. > > My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: > > 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI > > 2. Discuss the nature of ?periodic review? in the work of SCI. > > 3. Review draft of letter as revised. > > 4. AOB > > 5. Adjourn > > > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM > To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori > Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > > Dear all, > > > > The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we > hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three > of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. > > > > - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential > topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its > last meeting on 15 January; see > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is > therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as a possible topic for > referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than > recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it > (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up > consideration of the issue again. > > > > - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the > October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI > recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider > the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly > noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ?a broader exercise in > reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures?: see > http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 ? an exercise which the > current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). > > > > - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI > had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or > without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review ? at a minimum, we assume this > means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would > not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations > from the GNSO Review are clearer. > > > > - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore > respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO > Council?s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather > than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be > reworked if these suggestions are adopted. > > > > We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to > provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part > of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the > SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In > particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next > meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we > hope that these comments are helpful. > > > > 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: Greg Shatan > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Julie Hedlund , Avri Doria , Thomas > Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > , Lori Schulman , > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de > Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > >> >> We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting >> will further inspire us to do so.) >> >> >> >> In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also >> available as an editable Google Doc at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3i >> QU/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as >> "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of >> where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language >> to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. >> On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the >> language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the >> language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual >> Operating Procedures). >> >> >> >> If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out >> and give ourselves back an hour of our time. >> >> >> >> I look forward to your responses. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> Gregory S. Shatan >> >> Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab >> >> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >> >> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >> >> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >> >> gsshatan at lawabel.com >> >> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> >> www.lawabel.com >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> wrote: >> >> Julie, >> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no >> one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far >> as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her >> issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. >> >> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would >> appreciate your doing this today. >> >> Thank you, >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> Importance: High >> >> >> >> Hi Anne, >> >> >> >> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that >> they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time >> for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would >> respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their >> thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary >> member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, >> suggest changes that would enable them to support it. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> From: , Anne >> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM >> To: 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> Cc: Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund >> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> , Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >>> >>> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the >>> mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but >>> we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need >>> to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de >>> Saint G?ry >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Belated apologies for missing the meeting. >>> >>> Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I >>> know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been >>> taken during the call. >>> >>> A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course >>> faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. >>> >>> As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a >>> positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to >>> pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not >>> supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. >>> I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but >>> opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a >>> comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and >>> has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include >>> resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our >>> recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking >>> to reopen this issue. >>> >>> I can not support the letter as it stands. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew >>> the results of any reorganizational review. >>> >>> On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s >>>> SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the >>>> list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >>>> >>>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on >>>> the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this >>>> letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting >>>> separately there.) >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >>>> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>> Transcripts >>>> >>>> Same here. Sorry! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt >>>>> meeting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>>>> >>>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund >>>>> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>> Transcripts >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in >>>>> accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by >>>>> Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part >>>>> of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to >>>>> action taken by Council affecting its work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until >>>>> the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating >>>>> the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request >>>>> for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a >>>>> timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. >>>>> >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>> Transcripts >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the >>>>> joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lori >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>>>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 >>>>> ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>>>> >>>>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient >>>>> or >>>>> >>>>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>>>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please >>>>> notify the >>>>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message >>>>> and any >>>>> >>>>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus >>>>> free. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> -------------- 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: Draft SCI Letter to GNSO Council - revised 26 Jan 2015.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 21551 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 AAikman at lrrlaw.com Mon Jan 26 20:54:46 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:54:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Julie, I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between "immediate problems" referred by Council and "periodic review of all procedures and guidelines". As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: ? On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems ? On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don't think that at this point the letter really says anything other than "SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work." I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture - as in, "we just don't have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability." I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.) If so, I'll send another draft to the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri's comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI 2. Discuss the nature of "periodic review" in the work of SCI. 3. Review draft of letter as revised. 4. AOB 5. Adjourn Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council's radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI's request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of "a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures": see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 - an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review - at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council's intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a "periodic review" by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. 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: Greg Shatan > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan at lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com www.lawabel.com On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Jan 26 21:13:04 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:13:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi Anne, I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed. Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Thanks Julie, > > I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language > taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the > distinction between ?immediate problems? referred by Council and ?periodic > review of all procedures and guidelines?. As a reminder, the bullet points > below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: > > ? On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been > identified as presenting immediate problems > > ? On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to > identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by > SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) > > > Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a > mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have > Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI > Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. > > In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the > language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don?t think that at this > point the letter really says anything other than ?SCI is on hold and we want > you to let us know as soon as we can start work.? I have to admit to being > baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question > of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. > Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture ? as in, ?we just don?t > have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for > accountability.? > > I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February > 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly > amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. > Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject > of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this > previously.) > > If so, I?ll send another draft to the list. > Anne > > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan > Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > > Anne, > > > > The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether > they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the > day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and > let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know > already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we > cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the > Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > From: , Anne > > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM > To: Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > > > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, > Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert > >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >, > Lori Schulman >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " > >, > Glen de Saint G?ry > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > >> >> Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth >> discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of >> agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri?s comments. I am also quite >> interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from >> Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some >> very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they >> are available, we will have a better final product. >> >> My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: >> >> 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI >> >> 2. Discuss the nature of ?periodic review? in the work of SCI. >> >> 3. Review draft of letter as revised. >> >> 4. AOB >> >> 5. Adjourn >> >> >> Thank you, >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org ] >> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM >> To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori >> Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> ; Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what >> we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to >> three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. >> >> >> >> - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the >> potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold >> following its last meeting on 15 January; see >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items >> . It >> is therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as a possible topic for >> referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than >> recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it >> (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up >> consideration of the issue again. >> >> >> >> - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the >> October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI >> recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to >> consider the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further >> expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ?a broader >> exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures?: see >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 >> ? an exercise which >> the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating >> Procedures). >> >> >> >> - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the >> SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or >> without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review ? at a minimum, we assume this >> means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would >> not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations >> from the GNSO Review are clearer. >> >> >> >> - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore >> respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO >> Council?s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather >> than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be >> reworked if these suggestions are adopted. >> >> >> >> We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to >> provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not >> part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so >> that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft >> letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for >> the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work >> week, we hope that these comments are helpful. >> >> >> >> 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: Greg Shatan > >> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 >> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > >> Cc: Julie Hedlund >> >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> >, >> Lori Schulman >, >> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " >> >, >> Glen de Saint G?ry > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >>> >>> We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled >>> meeting will further inspire us to do so.) >>> >>> >>> >>> In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also >>> available as an editable Google Doc at >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3 >>> iQU/edit?usp=sharing >>> >> 3iQU/edit?usp=sharing> >>> >>> >>> >>> In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as >>> "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of >>> where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language >>> to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. >>> On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the >>> language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the >>> language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual >>> Operating Procedures). >>> >>> >>> >>> If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out >>> and give ourselves back an hour of our time. >>> >>> >>> >>> I look forward to your responses. >>> >>> >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> Gregory S. Shatan >>> >>> Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab >>> >>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >>> >>> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >>> >>> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >>> >>> gsshatan at lawabel.com >>> >>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>> >>> www.lawabel.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne >> > wrote: >>> >>> Julie, >>> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no >>> one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As >>> far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that >>> addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the >>> deadline. >>> >>> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would >>> appreciate your doing this today. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org >>> ] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> ; Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> Importance: High >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Anne, >>> >>> >>> >>> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that >>> they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time >>> for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would >>> respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide >>> their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each >>> primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, >>> or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> > >>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM >>> To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >>> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> > >>> Cc: Lori Schulman >, >>> Julie Hedlund >, >>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " >>> >, >>> Glen de Saint G?ry > >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the >>>> mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but >>>> we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need >>>> to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >>>> Thank you, >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org ] >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM >>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> ; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Belated apologies for missing the meeting. >>>> >>>> Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I >>>> know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been >>>> taken during the call. >>>> >>>> A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of >>>> course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. >>>> >>>> As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a >>>> positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to >>>> pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not >>>> supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. >>>> I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but >>>> opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a >>>> comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and >>>> has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include >>>> resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our >>>> recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI >>>> asking to reopen this issue. >>>> >>>> I can not support the letter as it stands. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we >>>> knew the results of any reorganizational review. >>>> >>>> On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s >>>>> SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the >>>>> list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >>>>> >>>>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on >>>>> the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this >>>>> letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting >>>>> separately there.) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >>>>> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; >>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>> Transcripts >>>>> >>>>> Same here. Sorry! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt >>>>>> meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund >>>>>> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings >>>>>> & Transcripts >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in >>>>>> accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>>>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by >>>>>> Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is >>>>>> part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information >>>>>> as to action taken by Council affecting its work. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until >>>>>> the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating >>>>>> the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and >>>>>> request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches >>>>>> Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>>> Transcripts >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the >>>>>> joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lori >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>>>>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 >>>>>> ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>>>>> >>>>>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that >>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient >>>>>> or >>>>>> >>>>>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>>>>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please >>>>>> notify the >>>>>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message >>>>>> and any >>>>>> >>>>>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus >>>>>> free. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> -------------- 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: Draft SCI Letter to GNSO Council - revised 26 Jan 2015.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 21551 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 aelsadr at egyptig.org Mon Jan 26 21:37:35 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:37:35 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <620BC1A3-7647-44B6-9575-C74151F621A2@egyptig.org> Hi, Some comments in-line below: On Jan 24, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Mary Wong wrote: > Dear all, > > The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. > > - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. Yup. That sounds right. However, if there is a desire to ask the GNSO council to green-light the SCI starting work on this, I don?t mind. > - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ?a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures?: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 ? an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). > > - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review ? at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. That was my understanding as well. I don?t see why we should be bringing this up at the time being, considering we previously agreed to postpone picking this up until after the full GNSO review is concluded. I thought that that was where we left things on this point during last week?s call as well. > - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council?s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. +1 Thanks. Amr > > We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. > > 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: Greg Shatan > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 > To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Julie Hedlund , Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > >> We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) >> >> In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing >> >> In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). >> >> If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. >> >> I look forward to your responses. >> >> Greg >> >> Gregory S. Shatan >> Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab >> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >> gsshatan at lawabel.com >> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> www.lawabel.com >> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>> Julie, >>> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. >>> >>> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson >>> Importance: High >>> >>> Hi Anne, >>> >>> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Julie >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM >>> To: 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> Cc: Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson >>> >>>> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >>>> Thank you, >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM >>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Belated apologies for missing the meeting. >>>> >>>> Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. >>>> >>>> A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. >>>> >>>> As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. >>>> >>>> I can not support the letter as it stands. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. >>>> On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >>>>> >>>>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >>>>> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts >>>>> >>>>> Same here. Sorry! >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>>>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>>>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>>>>> >>>>>> Lori >>>>>> >>>>>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>>>>> 1703 North Beauregard Street >>>>>> Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 >>>>>> P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>>>>> >>>>>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is >>>>>> >>>>>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or >>>>>> >>>>>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>>>>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the >>>>>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any >>>>>> >>>>>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Mon Jan 26 21:47:04 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:47:04 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the language on point #2, I don?t think this is at all accurate. Currently, it says: ?Last year, acting on an SCI recommendation, the Council amended the Operating Procedures to allow for waivers of the 10-day motion submission deadline under certain circumstances. The question whether the new 10-day waiver rule applies to resubmitted motions was not directly considered by SCI and we recommend that this be reviewed and clarified.? I would like to revisit this issue, and believe that the 10-day rule waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, but to say that this was not considered by the SCI is simply not true. It was considered and discussed over months on both teleconference and on-list discussions. If I recall correctly, we even had suggested language circulated to the SCI list as far back as March 2014 to address this that the SCI did directly consider, then opted not to adopt in its recommendation to the council months later. I do wish we got this the first time around, but would prefer to explain why we didn?t previously adopt it, and simply recommend that we pick it up again some time this year. Thanks. Amr On Jan 23, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) > > In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing > > In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). > > If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. > > I look forward to your responses. > > Greg > > Gregory S. Shatan > Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab > 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 > Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 > Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 > gsshatan at lawabel.com > ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com > www.lawabel.com > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Julie, > > Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. > > > > PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Importance: High > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM > To: 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > > > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. > > > > Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > > > > From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben : > > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' > > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. > > > > Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. > > Anne > > > > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Mon Jan 26 22:11:40 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:11:40 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RSVPs for Tomorrow's Call so Far Message-ID: Anne, Per the Secretariat here are the RSVPs so far: Confirmed: Registrar Stakeholder Group: Jennifer Standiford, Primary Intellectual Property Constituency: Anne-Aikman Scalese, Primary/Chair Non-Commercial Users Constituency: Amr Elsadr, Primary Apologies: Business Constituency: Ron Andruff, Primary Intellectual Property Constituency: Greg Shatan, Alternate Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group: Avri Doria, Primary Nominating Committee Appointee: Thomas Rickert, Secondary NPOC Constituency, Lori Schulman, Primary/Vice Chair I have included below the full list of members for reference. We have, thus far, heard from 8 of 16 members. We currently have confirmed attendance from 3 of 16, or less than half and only 3 groups. The GNSO Working Group Guidelines do not define a quorum, yet it would seem that we would need more than 3 SCI members. I suggest we wait until early tomorrow morning to see if there are further responses, and perhaps this email will reminder members who have not responded. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support Stakeholder Group / Constituency Primary Member Alternate Member Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG)Jennifer Standiford - Jennifer Standiford SOI TBD Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG)Ray Fassett - Ray Fassett SOI TBD Business Constituency (BC)Ron Andruff (Chair 2014) - Ron Andruff SOI Angie Graves - Angie Graves SOI ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP)Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Wolf-Ulrich Knoben SOI Osvaldo Novoa - Osvaldo Novoa SOI Intellectual Property ConstituencyAnne E. Aikman-Scalese (Chair 2015) - Anne Aikman-Scalese SOI Gregory Shatan - Gregory S. Shatan SOI Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)Avri Doria - Avri Doria SOI Stefania Milan - Stefania Milan SOI Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)Amr Elsadr- Amr Elsadr SOI David Cake - David Cake SOI Nominating Committee AppointeeJennifer Wolfe - Jennifer Wolfe SOI Thomas Rickert - Thomas Rickert SOI Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC ConstituencyLori Schulman (Vice-Chair 2015) - Lori S. Schulman SOI Cintra Sooknanan (Vice-Chair 2014) - Cintra Sooknanan SOI -------------- 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 AAikman at lrrlaw.com Mon Jan 26 22:25:26 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:25:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Dear SCI members: Per Julie, Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a modification of Greg's draft and has the following points: 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council meeting as to "friendly amendments" being on hold , but urges council to consider assigning the "Friendly amendments" project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to refer it to SCI. 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.) 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the "Voting Thresholds" issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the Council level. 4. Regarding SCI's periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report. Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid scheduling another call. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03975.5FB8FC60] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Anne, I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed. Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > Cc: Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie, I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between "immediate problems" referred by Council and "periodic review of all procedures and guidelines". As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: ? On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems ? On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don't think that at this point the letter really says anything other than "SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work." I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture - as in, "we just don't have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability." I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.) If so, I'll send another draft to the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri's comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI 2. Discuss the nature of "periodic review" in the work of SCI. 3. Review draft of letter as revised. 4. AOB 5. Adjourn Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council's radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI's request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of "a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures": see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 - an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review - at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council's intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a "periodic review" by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. 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: Greg Shatan > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan at lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com www.lawabel.com On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCI-Robinson27JAN2015.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16969 bytes Desc: SCI-Robinson27JAN2015.docx URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Tue Jan 27 13:28:51 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:28:51 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hello Anne and everyone, On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for ?clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments?. We make this suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been on the Council?s action list: see, e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other online means, if approved. More broadly, I?d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention in suggesting edits to Greg?s version of the letter, specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the SCI?s Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a ?consistent review plan? first be developed by the SCI. Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI?s draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the GNSO?s policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters on hold. 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: , Anne Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 To: Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Dear SCI members: > > Per Julie, > Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not > cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of > course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. > > Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one > modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a > modification of Greg?s draft and has the following points: > > 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council > meeting as to ?friendly amendments? being on hold , but urges council to > consider assigning the ?Friendly amendments? project to SCI for commencement > of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this > topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on > February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to > refer it to SCI. > > 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri > strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether > the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a > later call since it is the subject of debate.) > > 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the ?Voting Thresholds? > issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its > January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is > likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller > discussion at the Council level. > > 4. Regarding SCI?s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its > Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received > from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in > accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be > submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake > Report. > > > Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid > scheduling another call. > > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan > Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > > Hi Anne, > > > > I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no > one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just > a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect > what you and the SCI members have agreed. > > > > Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let > you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for > times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if > necessary. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > From: , Anne > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM > To: Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , > Greg Shatan > Cc: Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman > , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > , Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > >> >> Thanks Julie, >> >> I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language >> taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the >> distinction between ?immediate problems? referred by Council and ?periodic >> review of all procedures and guidelines?. As a reminder, the bullet points >> below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: >> >> ? On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been >> identified as presenting immediate problems >> >> ? On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order >> to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear >> definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) >> >> >> Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a >> mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have >> Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as >> SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. >> >> In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore >> the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don?t think that at >> this point the letter really says anything other than ?SCI is on hold and we >> want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.? I have to admit to >> being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the >> question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of >> GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture ? as in, >> ?we just don?t have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for >> accountability.? >> >> I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February >> 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly >> amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. >> Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the >> subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected >> to this previously.) >> >> If so, I?ll send another draft to the list. >> Anne >> >> >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan >> Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >> Anne, >> >> >> >> The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether >> they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the >> day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have >> and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know >> already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we >> cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the >> Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> From: , Anne >> > >> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM >> To: Mary Wong >, Greg >> Shatan > >> Cc: Julie Hedlund >> >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> >, >> Lori Schulman >, >> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " >> >, >> Glen de Saint G?ry > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >>> >>> Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are >>> worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for >>> purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri?s comments. I am >>> also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting >>> process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We >>> have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. >>> If they are available, we will have a better final product. >>> >>> My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: >>> >>> 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI >>> >>> 2. Discuss the nature of ?periodic review? in the work of SCI. >>> >>> 3. Review draft of letter as revised. >>> >>> 4. AOB >>> >>> 5. Adjourn >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org ] >>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM >>> To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori >>> Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>> ; Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what >>> we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to >>> three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. >>> >>> >>> >>> - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the >>> potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold >>> following its last meeting on 15 January; see >>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items >>> . It >>> is therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as a possible topic for >>> referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than >>> recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it >>> (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up >>> consideration of the issue again. >>> >>> >>> >>> - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the >>> October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI >>> recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to >>> consider the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further >>> expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ?a broader >>> exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures?: see >>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 >>> ? an exercise which >>> the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating >>> Procedures). >>> >>> >>> >>> - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the >>> SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of >>> or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review ? at a minimum, we assume >>> this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures >>> would not take place till after the type and nature of the final >>> recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. >>> >>> >>> >>> - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore >>> respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO >>> Council?s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review >>> rather than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph >>> be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. >>> >>> >>> >>> We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to >>> provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not >>> part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so >>> that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft >>> letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for >>> the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work >>> week, we hope that these comments are helpful. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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: Greg Shatan >>> > >>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 >>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > >>> Cc: Julie Hedlund >>> >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >>> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> >, >>> Lori Schulman >, >>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org " >>> >, >>> Glen de Saint G?ry > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> >>>> >>>> We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled >>>> meeting will further inspire us to do so.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also >>>> available as an editable Google Doc at >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP >>>> 3iQU/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>> P3iQU/edit?usp=sharing> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as >>>> "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of >>>> where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language >>>> to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. >>>> On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the >>>> language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the >>>> language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual >>>> Operating Procedures). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out >>>> and give ourselves back an hour of our time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I look forward to your responses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> >>>> Gregory S. Shatan >>>> >>>> Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab >>>> >>>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >>>> >>>> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >>>> >>>> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >>>> >>>> gsshatan at lawabel.com >>>> >>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>> >>>> www.lawabel.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Julie, >>>> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no >>>> one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As >>>> far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that >>>> addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the >>>> deadline. >>>> >>>> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I >>>> would appreciate your doing this today. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org >>>> ] >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM >>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich >>>> Knoben >>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> ; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>> Importance: High >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Anne, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that >>>> they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time >>>> for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would >>>> respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide >>>> their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each >>>> primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, >>>> or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: , Anne >>> > >>>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM >>>> To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >>>> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> > >>>> Cc: Lori Schulman >>>> >, Julie Hedlund >>>> >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>> " >>> >, Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> > >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per >>>>> the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, >>>>> but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we >>>>> need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org ] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>> ; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Belated apologies for missing the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I >>>>> know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been >>>>> taken during the call. >>>>> >>>>> A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of >>>>> course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. >>>>> >>>>> As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in >>>>> a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them >>>>> to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not >>>>> supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. >>>>> I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but >>>>> opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a >>>>> comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did >>>>> and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to >>>>> include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to >>>>> withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand >>>>> the SCI asking to reopen this issue. >>>>> >>>>> I can not support the letter as it stands. >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we >>>>> knew the results of any reorganizational review. >>>>> >>>>> On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday?s >>>>>> SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the >>>>>> list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >>>>>> >>>>>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on >>>>>> the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this >>>>>> letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting >>>>>> separately there.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >>>>>> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; >>>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings >>>>>> & Transcripts >>>>>> >>>>>> Same here. Sorry! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt >>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund >>>>>>> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings >>>>>>> & Transcripts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in >>>>>>> accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>>>>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by >>>>>>> Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is >>>>>>> part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information >>>>>>> as to action taken by Council affecting its work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until >>>>>>> the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be >>>>>>> circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our >>>>>>> letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore >>>>>>> reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February >>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori >>>>>>> Schulman >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>>>> Transcripts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the >>>>>>> joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lori >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>>>>>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 >>>>>>> ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>>>>>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please >>>>>>> notify the >>>>>>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message >>>>>>> and any >>>>>>> >>>>>>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus >>>>>>> free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 27 14:14:27 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:14:27 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> Hi, From a liaison perspective: I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter. I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make them part of the report, with or without a letter and with or without slides even (not sure when i will create slides maybe the long flight over). If there is a letter I will speak to it. If there isn't I will speak to the issues. --- As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could quibble with, but was also something I could accept. Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against the sending of letters if that is what we want to do. avri On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote: > Hello Anne and everyone, > > On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a > straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, > to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation > for ?clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on > friendly amendments?. We make this suggestion as it does not seem to > us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been > on the Council?s action list: see, > e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle > or other online means, if approved. > > More broadly, I?d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our > intention in suggesting edits to Greg?s version of the letter, > specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, > was not to derogate from the SCI?s Charter; rather, our suggested > edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of > issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a > ?consistent review plan? first be developed by the SCI. > > Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just > of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the > IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take > into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are > not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that > the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In > addition to open public comment periods for Translation and > Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are > expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from > the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also > anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the > Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection > Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, > the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest > to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, > and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and > feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. > > Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the > SCI?s draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the > manager of the GNSO?s policy development process, has perhaps the most > comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already > put a couple of matters on hold. > > 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: , Anne > > Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 > To: Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > > Cc: Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert > >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >, Lori Schulman > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de Saint G?ry > > > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > Dear SCI members: > > > > Per Julie, > > Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We > have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the > list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. > > > > Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the > one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This > redline is a modification of Greg?s draft and has the following > points: > > > > 1. This version lists the current status after the January > 15 council meeting as to ?friendly amendments? being on hold , but > urges council to consider assigning the ?Friendly amendments? > project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What > this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place > during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 > and Council would decide to either table this again or else to > refer it to SCI. > > 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item > to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr > disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly > considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call > since it is the subject of debate.) > > 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the ?Voting > Thresholds? issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put > on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a > more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want > to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the > Council level. > > 4. Regarding SCI?s periodic review responsibilities as > outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if > no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it > is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to > work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and > that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report. > > > > Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to > avoid scheduling another call. > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *cid:image001.gif at 01D03975.5FB8FC60* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| > www.LRRLaw.com * > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > *Sent:* Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan > *Cc:* Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori > Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council > Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for > reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary > noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We > would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the > SCI members have agreed. > > > > Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. > I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early > tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday > (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > *From: *, Anne > > *Date: *Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM > *To: *Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > > > *Cc: *Avri Doria >, Thomas > Rickert >, > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de Saint G?ry > > > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council > Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Thanks Julie, > > > > I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually > modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved > by Council in relation to the distinction between ?immediate > problems? referred by Council and ?periodic review of all > procedures and guidelines?. As a reminder, the bullet points > below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: > > > > ? On request, for those procedures and guidelines that > have been identified as presenting immediate problems > > ? On a periodic timescale for all procedures and > guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or > improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which > procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) > > > > Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we > will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day > July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on > Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I > would want to be involved in the call. > > > > In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely > need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In > addition, I don?t think that at this point the letter really > says anything other than ?SCI is on hold and we want you to > let us know as soon as we can start work.? I have to admit to > being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on > hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very > unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that > this was simply a sweeping gesture ? as in, ?we just don?t > have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for > accountability.? > > > > I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 > minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move > forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work > should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, > would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on > the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only > one who objected to this previously.) > > > > If so, I?ll send another draft to the list. > > Anne > > > > > > > > *cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com* *| > **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > > > *From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > *Sent:* Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan > *Cc:* Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori > Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO > Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Anne, > > > > The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond > as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a > deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late > today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and > let you know, including which members specifically can attend. > We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts > for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join > the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a > Doodle to find a better time for a call. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > *From: *, Anne > > *Date: *Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM > *To: *Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > > > *Cc: *Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >, Lori Schulman > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de Saint G?ry > > > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO > Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and > observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can > participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the > letter now that we have Avri?s comments. I am also quite > interested in active participation in this letter drafting > process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI > participants if possible. We have some very fine minds > and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they > are available, we will have a better final product. > > > > My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: > > > > 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI > > 2. Discuss the nature of ?periodic review? in the > work of SCI. > > 3. Review draft of letter as revised. > > 4. AOB > > 5. Adjourn > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona > 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com* *| > **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] > *Sent:* Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM > *To:* Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO > Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Dear all, > > > > The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be > helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the > ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four > topics highlighted in the draft letter. > > > > - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually > one of the potential topics for referral that the Council > has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on > 15 January; see > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. > It is therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as > a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we > wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending > action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform > it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the > Council takes up consideration of the issue again. > > > > - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the > language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution > (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations > unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to > consider the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus > Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may > be conducted as part of ?a broader exercise in reviewing > all the GNSO Operating Procedures?: > see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 ? > an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic > #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). > > > > - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff > had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review > should not occur independently of or without reference to > the ongoing GNSO Review ? at a minimum, we assume this > means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO > Operating Procedures would not take place till after the > type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO > Review are clearer. > > > > - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO > Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be > reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council?s > intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO > Review rather than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and > perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these > suggestions are adopted. > > > > We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this > time in order to provide further context and background > for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles > discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that > the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of > the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able > only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time > when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we > hope that these comments are helpful. > > > > 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: *Greg Shatan > > *Date: *Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 > *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > > *Cc: *Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria > >, Thomas Rickert > >, > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de Saint > G?ry > > *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO > Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. > (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us > to do so.) > > > > In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the > letter, which is also available as an editable Google > Doc > at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing > > > > In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were > phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, > which leaves the question open of where in the year > any of these items should be handled I've added > language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await > the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, > I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the > language of the actual Operating Procedures remains > ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to > "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating > Procedures). > > > > If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, > we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour > of our time. > > > > I look forward to your responses. > > > > Greg > > > *Gregory S. Shatan** * > > Partner*| **Abelman Frayne & Schwab* > > *666 Third Avenue **|**New York, NY 10017-5621* > > *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 > > *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 > > */gsshatan at lawabel.com/* > > *ICANN-related: **gregshatanipc at gmail.com* > * * > > */www.lawabel.com/* > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > wrote: > > Julie, > > Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via > the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to > the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I > know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe > that addressing her issues on the list is going to > result in meeting the deadline. > > > > PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY > AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona > 85701-1611* > > *(T) **520.629.4428* *| (F) > **520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com* *| > **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org > ] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas > Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de > Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to > GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > *Importance:* High > > > > Hi Anne, > > > > If I recall correctly I think some people raised > concerns on the call that they would not be available > next week and also that it was a very busy time for > various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. > I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could > encourage people to provide their thoughts on the > list. In particular, it would be helpful if each > primary member could indicate whether he or she > supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes > that would enable them to support it. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > *From: *, Anne > > *Date: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM > *To: *'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' > >, > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > *Cc: *Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund > >, > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > " > >, Glen de > Saint G?ry > > *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to > GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January > 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have > any disagreement on these points during the call, > but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to > discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will > staff please proceed accordingly? > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, > Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) **520.629.4428* *| (F) > **520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com* *| > **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen de > Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter > to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that > are being included? I know we have not done one > on the list and was wondering if one had been > taken during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my > report. I will of course faithfully faithfully > any letter the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I > would have participated in a positive consensus on > these four items, though I might have allowed them > to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I > have been explicit in not supporting a review of > consensus levels while the GNSO review was > ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we > could have done this before but opted not to. So > while I would understand the council requesting > such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking > to redo work it already did and has had accepted. > Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to > include resubmitted notions and that may have been > a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But > since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI > asking to reopen this issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example > until such time as we knew the results of any > reorganizational review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO > Council based on Tuesday?s SCI conference > call. If you have any comments, please supply > them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, > January 26. > > > > *Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we > are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for > Working Sessions in Singapore for you to > present this letter to Council. (I am unable > to attend and SCI will not be meeting > separately there.) > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > > > *mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif* > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, > Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) **520.629.4428* *| (F) > **520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com* > *| > **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Thomas Rickert > [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; > Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > ; Glen > de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH > Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben > >: > > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came > back late after the Frankfurt meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > *To:* 'Lori Schulman' > ; Julie > Hedlund > ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > > *Cc:* 'Glen de Saint G?ry' > > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: > NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & > Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the > draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance > with comments received during today?s meeting. > > > > Separately, *and specifically directed at > Avri as Council liaison*, staff advised > today that certain SCI matters were put > ?on hold? last week by Council. (Thanks > Mary for this info.) Staff also advised > that it is part of the function of Council > liaison to provide SCI with information as > to action taken by Council affecting its > work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting > minutes are not available until the next > GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not > be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in > today?s call. We will be circulating the > redraft of the letter soon. We want to be > sure our letter and request for time on > the Council?s work schedule for Singapore > reaches Council in a timely fashion and > preferably well before February 1. > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) **520.629.4428* *| > (F) **520.879.4725* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com* > * | **www.LRRLaw.com* > > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Lori Schulman > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > *To:* Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > > *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH > Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week?s > intersessional. I didn?t find the joint > letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 > ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jan 27 14:26:35 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:26:35 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RSVPs for Tomorrow's Call so Far In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anne, We have had no further responses. Thus, we have only 3 attendees if we hold the meeting, which does not qualify as a quorum by any definition. Staff respectfully suggest that we cancel the meeting. Best regards, Julie Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2015, at 5:13 PM, Julie Hedlund > wrote: Anne, Per the Secretariat here are the RSVPs so far: Confirmed: Registrar Stakeholder Group: Jennifer Standiford, Primary Intellectual Property Constituency: Anne-Aikman Scalese, Primary/Chair Non-Commercial Users Constituency: Amr Elsadr, Primary Apologies: Business Constituency: Ron Andruff, Primary Intellectual Property Constituency: Greg Shatan, Alternate Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group: Avri Doria, Primary Nominating Committee Appointee: Thomas Rickert, Secondary NPOC Constituency, Lori Schulman, Primary/Vice Chair I have included below the full list of members for reference. We have, thus far, heard from 8 of 16 members. We currently have confirmed attendance from 3 of 16, or less than half and only 3 groups. The GNSO Working Group Guidelines do not define a quorum, yet it would seem that we would need more than 3 SCI members. I suggest we wait until early tomorrow morning to see if there are further responses, and perhaps this email will reminder members who have not responded. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support Stakeholder Group / Constituency Primary Member Alternate Member Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) Jennifer Standiford - Jennifer Standiford SOI TBD Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) Ray Fassett - Ray Fassett SOI TBD Business Constituency (BC) Ron Andruff (Chair 2014) - Ron Andruff SOI Angie Graves - Angie Graves SOI ISPs and connectivity providers Constituency (ISPCP) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Wolf-Ulrich Knoben SOI Osvaldo Novoa - Osvaldo Novoa SOI Intellectual Property Constituency Anne E. Aikman-Scalese (Chair 2015) - Anne Aikman-Scalese SOI Gregory Shatan - Gregory S. Shatan SOI Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) Avri Doria - Avri Doria SOI Stefania Milan - Stefania Milan SOI Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Amr Elsadr- Amr Elsadr SOI David Cake - David Cake SOI Nominating Committee Appointee Jennifer Wolfe - Jennifer Wolfe SOI Thomas Rickert - Thomas Rickert SOI Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency - NPOC Constituency Lori Schulman (Vice-Chair 2015) - Lori S. Schulman SOI Cintra Sooknanan (Vice-Chair 2014) - Cintra Sooknanan SOI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Jan 27 16:16:21 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:16:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Avri, The letter was proposed so that in fact SCI could reach consensus with regard to what SCI is communicating to Council. I think Greg in particular was quite frustrated by what was communicated regarding the 10 day waiver issue last year and felt that there was actually no consensus within SCI as to the effect on resubmission of a motion. This resulted in a "no" vote from IPC and that is certainly not desirable from my point of view going forward. Like you, I am a huge fan of the consensus process used within SCI. Thus I think that it would be important for SCI members to be comfortable with the content of the report you plan to give. The fact that we have not been able to agree on the content of a letter tells me that there are still differences of opinion which have not been resolved. In fact, there is no real difference between a letter and a report - SCI should have consensus or we would end up having you report that we do not have consensus and that may simply be a waste of Council's time. One other option is simply to cancel the letter and the report and skip the opportunity to address Council in Singapore as to SCI issues since we do not in fact have a consensus regarding our work plan for 2015. That would be my recommendation at this point. I'm sure Council can use the 15 minutes. Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today's call so that should be cancelled as well. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03A0F.98C82B80] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:14 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, >From a liaison perspective: I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter. I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make them part of the report, with or without a letter and with or without slides even (not sure when i will create slides maybe the long flight over). If there is a letter I will speak to it. If there isn't I will speak to the issues. --- As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could quibble with, but was also something I could accept. Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against the sending of letters if that is what we want to do. avri On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote: Hello Anne and everyone, On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for "clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments". We make this suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been on the Council's action list: see, e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other online means, if approved. More broadly, I'd like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention in suggesting edits to Greg's version of the letter, specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the SCI's Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a "consistent review plan" first be developed by the SCI. Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI's draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the GNSO's policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters on hold. 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: , Anne > Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 To: Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > Cc: Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear SCI members: Per Julie, Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a modification of Greg's draft and has the following points: 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council meeting as to "friendly amendments" being on hold , but urges council to consider assigning the "Friendly amendments" project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to refer it to SCI. 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.) 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the "Voting Thresholds" issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the Council level. 4. Regarding SCI's periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report. Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid scheduling another call. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03975.5FB8FC60] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Anne, I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed. Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund >, Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > Cc: Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie, I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between "immediate problems" referred by Council and "periodic review of all procedures and guidelines". As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: ? On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems ? On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don't think that at this point the letter really says anything other than "SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work." I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture - as in, "we just don't have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability." I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.) If so, I'll send another draft to the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong >, Greg Shatan > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri's comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI 2. Discuss the nature of "periodic review" in the work of SCI. 3. Review draft of letter as revised. 4. AOB 5. Adjourn Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council's radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI's request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of "a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures": see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 - an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review - at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council's intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a "periodic review" by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. 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: Greg Shatan > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" > Cc: Julie Hedlund >, Avri Doria >, Thomas Rickert >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >, Lori Schulman >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan at lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com www.lawabel.com On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' >, 'Thomas Rickert' >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman >, Julie Hedlund >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >, Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jan 27 16:29:34 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:29:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, I'll ask the Secretariat to send the notice canceling today's call. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:16 AM To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Cc: Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Avri, > The letter was proposed so that in fact SCI could reach consensus with regard > to what SCI is communicating to Council. I think Greg in particular was quite > frustrated by what was communicated regarding the 10 day waiver issue last > year and felt that there was actually no consensus within SCI as to the effect > on resubmission of a motion. This resulted in a ?no? vote from IPC and that > is certainly not desirable from my point of view going forward. Like you, I > am a huge fan of the consensus process used within SCI. > > Thus I think that it would be important for SCI members to be comfortable with > the content of the report you plan to give. The fact that we have not been > able to agree on the content of a letter tells me that there are still > differences of opinion which have not been resolved. In fact, there is no > real difference between a letter and a report ? SCI should have consensus or > we would end up having you report that we do not have consensus and that may > simply be a waste of Council?s time. > > One other option is simply to cancel the letter and the report and skip the > opportunity to address Council in Singapore as to SCI issues since we do not > in fact have a consensus regarding our work plan for 2015. That would be my > recommendation at this point. I?m sure Council can use the 15 minutes. > Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today?s call so that > should be cancelled as well. > > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:14 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > Hi, > > From a liaison perspective: > > I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter. > > I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make them part > of the report, with or without a letter and with or without slides even (not > sure when i will create slides maybe the long flight over). > > If there is a letter I will speak to it. > If there isn't I will speak to the issues. > > --- > > As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could quibble > with, but was also something I could accept. > > Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against the > sending of letters if that is what we want to do. > > avri > > > On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote: >> >> Hello Anne and everyone, >> >> >> >> On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll >> or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the >> level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for ?clarification of >> procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments?. We make this >> suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the >> issue, which so far has been on the Council?s action list: see, e.g. >> https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other >> online means, if approved. >> >> >> >> More broadly, I?d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention >> in suggesting edits to Greg?s version of the letter, specifically in relation >> to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the >> SCI?s Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, >> where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the >> expectation that a ?consistent review plan? first be developed by the SCI. >> >> >> >> Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the >> amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA >> Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into >> account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet >> known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and >> the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public >> comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and >> Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment >> period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We >> are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the >> Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in >> All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is >> being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the >> WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public >> comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection >> mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. >> >> >> >> Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI?s >> draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the >> GNSO?s policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive >> overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters >> on hold. >> >> >> >> 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: , Anne >> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 >> To: Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , >> Greg Shatan >> Cc: Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman >> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> , Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >>> >>> Dear SCI members: >>> >>> Per Julie, >>> Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not >>> cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of >>> course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. >>> >>> Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one >>> modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a >>> modification of Greg?s draft and has the following points: >>> >>> 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council >>> meeting as to ?friendly amendments? being on hold , but urges council to >>> consider assigning the ?Friendly amendments? project to SCI for commencement >>> of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this >>> topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri >>> on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to >>> refer it to SCI. >>> >>> 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which >>> Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to >>> whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this >>> issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.) >>> >>> 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the ?Voting Thresholds? >>> issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in >>> its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it >>> is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller >>> discussion at the Council level. >>> >>> 4. Regarding SCI?s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in >>> its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is >>> received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon >>> SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review >>> to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming >>> Westlake Report. >>> >>> >>> Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid >>> scheduling another call. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan >>> Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> >>> Hi Anne, >>> >>> >>> >>> I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since >>> no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is >>> just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would >>> reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will >>> let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look >>> for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a >>> Doodle if necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> >>> >>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>> >>> >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM >>> To: Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong >>> , Greg Shatan >>> Cc: Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman >>> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>> , Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Julie, >>>> >>>> I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language >>>> taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the >>>> distinction between ?immediate problems? referred by Council and ?periodic >>>> review of all procedures and guidelines?. As a reminder, the bullet points >>>> below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: >>>> >>>> ? On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been >>>> identified as presenting immediate problems >>>> >>>> ? On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in >>>> order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear >>>> definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) >>>> >>>> >>>> Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a >>>> mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have >>>> Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as >>>> SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. >>>> >>>> In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore >>>> the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don?t think that >>>> at this point the letter really says anything other than ?SCI is on hold >>>> and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.? I have to >>>> admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold >>>> as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a >>>> subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping >>>> gesture ? as in, ?we just don?t have time to deal with this right now due >>>> to ICG deadlines for accountability.? >>>> >>>> I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on >>>> February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of >>>> friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA >>>> transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us >>>> proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only >>>> one who objected to this previously.) >>>> >>>> If so, I?ll send another draft to the list. >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM >>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan >>>> Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> >>>> Anne, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to >>>> whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the >>>> end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many >>>> responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically >>>> can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for >>>> the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow >>>> we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a >>>> call. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: , Anne >>>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM >>>> To: Mary Wong , Greg Shatan >>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Avri Doria , >>>> Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> , Lori Schulman , >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen >>>> de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are >>>>> worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for >>>>> purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri?s comments. I >>>>> am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting >>>>> process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. >>>>> We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on >>>>> SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. >>>>> >>>>> My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI >>>>> >>>>> 2. Discuss the nature of ?periodic review? in the work of SCI. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Review draft of letter as revised. >>>>> >>>>> 4. AOB >>>>> >>>>> 5. Adjourn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] >>>>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM >>>>> To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori >>>>> Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add >>>>> what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which >>>>> relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the >>>>> potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold >>>>> following its last meeting on 15 January; see >>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It >>>>> is therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as a possible topic >>>>> for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather >>>>> than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council >>>>> inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council >>>>> takes up consideration of the issue again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the >>>>> October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI >>>>> recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to >>>>> consider the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and >>>>> further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ?a >>>>> broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures?: see >>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 ? an exercise which >>>>> the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating >>>>> Procedures). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the >>>>> SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of >>>>> or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review ? at a minimum, we assume >>>>> this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating >>>>> Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the >>>>> final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore >>>>> respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the >>>>> GNSO Council?s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO >>>>> Review rather than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and perhaps the final >>>>> paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to >>>>> provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not >>>>> part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so >>>>> that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft >>>>> letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations >>>>> for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their >>>>> work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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: Greg Shatan >>>>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Avri Doria , >>>>> Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>> , Lori Schulman , >>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen >>>>> de Saint G?ry >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled >>>>>> meeting will further inspire us to do so.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also >>>>>> available as an editable Google Doc at >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5 >>>>>> fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as >>>>>> "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open >>>>>> of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added >>>>>> language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the >>>>>> GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining >>>>>> issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains >>>>>> ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is >>>>>> not in the actual Operating Procedures). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this >>>>>> out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I look forward to your responses. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gregory S. Shatan >>>>>> >>>>>> Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab >>>>>> >>>>>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >>>>>> >>>>>> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >>>>>> >>>>>> gsshatan at lawabel.com >>>>>> >>>>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> www.lawabel.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Julie, >>>>>> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was >>>>>> no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. >>>>>> As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that >>>>>> addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the >>>>>> deadline. >>>>>> >>>>>> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I >>>>>> would appreciate your doing this today. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM >>>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> Knoben >>>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>>> Importance: High >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Anne, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call >>>>>> that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very >>>>>> busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I >>>>>> would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to >>>>>> provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful >>>>>> if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the >>>>>> letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to >>>>>> support it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Julie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: , Anne >>>>>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM >>>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund >>>>>> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>>> , Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per >>>>>>> the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the >>>>>>> call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds >>>>>>> like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen >>>>>>> de Saint G?ry >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Belated apologies for missing the meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? >>>>>>> I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had >>>>>>> been taken during the call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of >>>>>>> course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated >>>>>>> in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed >>>>>>> them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit >>>>>>> in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was >>>>>>> ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this >>>>>>> before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council >>>>>>> requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo >>>>>>> work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of >>>>>>> opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been >>>>>>> a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, >>>>>>> I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can not support the letter as it stands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we >>>>>>> knew the results of any reorganizational review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on >>>>>>> Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply >>>>>>> them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on >>>>>>> the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this >>>>>>> letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting >>>>>>> separately there.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >>>>>>> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>>>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; >>>>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings >>>>>>> & Transcripts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Same here. Sorry! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thomas >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt >>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund >>>>>>> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings >>>>>>> & Transcripts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in >>>>>>> accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>>>>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by >>>>>>> Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is >>>>>>> part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information >>>>>>> as to action taken by Council affecting its work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until >>>>>>> the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be >>>>>>> circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our >>>>>>> letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore >>>>>>> reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February >>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori >>>>>>> Schulman >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>>>> Transcripts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the >>>>>>> joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lori >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>>>>>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 >>>>>>> ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>>>>>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please >>>>>>> notify the >>>>>>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message >>>>>>> and any >>>>>>> >>>>>>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus >>>>>>> free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Tue Jan 27 17:45:53 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:45:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: , Anne Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:16 AM To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Cc: Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Avri, > The letter was proposed so that in fact SCI could reach consensus with regard > to what SCI is communicating to Council. I think Greg in particular was quite > frustrated by what was communicated regarding the 10 day waiver issue last > year and felt that there was actually no consensus within SCI as to the effect > on resubmission of a motion. This resulted in a ?no? vote from IPC and that > is certainly not desirable from my point of view going forward. Like you, I > am a huge fan of the consensus process used within SCI. > > Thus I think that it would be important for SCI members to be comfortable with > the content of the report you plan to give. The fact that we have not been > able to agree on the content of a letter tells me that there are still > differences of opinion which have not been resolved. In fact, there is no > real difference between a letter and a report ? SCI should have consensus or > we would end up having you report that we do not have consensus and that may > simply be a waste of Council?s time. > > One other option is simply to cancel the letter and the report and skip the > opportunity to address Council in Singapore as to SCI issues since we do not > in fact have a consensus regarding our work plan for 2015. That would be my > recommendation at this point. I?m sure Council can use the 15 minutes. > Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today?s call so that > should be cancelled as well. > > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:14 AM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > Hi, > > From a liaison perspective: > > I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter. > > I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make them part > of the report, with or without a letter and with or without slides even (not > sure when i will create slides maybe the long flight over). > > If there is a letter I will speak to it. > If there isn't I will speak to the issues. > > --- > > As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could quibble > with, but was also something I could accept. > > Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against the > sending of letters if that is what we want to do. > > avri > > > On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote: >> >> Hello Anne and everyone, >> >> >> >> On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll >> or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the >> level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for ?clarification of >> procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments?. We make this >> suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the >> issue, which so far has been on the Council?s action list: see, e.g. >> https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other >> online means, if approved. >> >> >> >> More broadly, I?d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention >> in suggesting edits to Greg?s version of the letter, specifically in relation >> to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the >> SCI?s Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, >> where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the >> expectation that a ?consistent review plan? first be developed by the SCI. >> >> >> >> Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the >> amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA >> Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into >> account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet >> known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and >> the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public >> comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and >> Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment >> period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We >> are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the >> Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in >> All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is >> being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the >> WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public >> comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection >> mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. >> >> >> >> Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI?s >> draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the >> GNSO?s policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive >> overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters >> on hold. >> >> >> >> 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: , Anne >> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 >> To: Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong , >> Greg Shatan >> Cc: Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman >> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> , Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >>> >>> Dear SCI members: >>> >>> Per Julie, >>> Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not >>> cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of >>> course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. >>> >>> Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one >>> modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a >>> modification of Greg?s draft and has the following points: >>> >>> 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council >>> meeting as to ?friendly amendments? being on hold , but urges council to >>> consider assigning the ?Friendly amendments? project to SCI for commencement >>> of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this >>> topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri >>> on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to >>> refer it to SCI. >>> >>> 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which >>> Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to >>> whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this >>> issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.) >>> >>> 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the ?Voting Thresholds? >>> issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in >>> its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it >>> is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller >>> discussion at the Council level. >>> >>> 4. Regarding SCI?s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in >>> its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is >>> received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon >>> SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review >>> to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming >>> Westlake Report. >>> >>> >>> Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid >>> scheduling another call. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Anne >>> >>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM >>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan >>> Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; >>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> >>> Hi Anne, >>> >>> >>> >>> I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since >>> no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is >>> just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would >>> reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will >>> let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look >>> for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a >>> Doodle if necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> >>> >>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >>> >>> >>> >>> From: , Anne >>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM >>> To: Julie Hedlund , Mary Wong >>> , Greg Shatan >>> Cc: Avri Doria , Thomas Rickert , >>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben , Lori Schulman >>> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>> , Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>> Jonathan Robinson >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Julie, >>>> >>>> I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language >>>> taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the >>>> distinction between ?immediate problems? referred by Council and ?periodic >>>> review of all procedures and guidelines?. As a reminder, the bullet points >>>> below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: >>>> >>>> ? On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been >>>> identified as presenting immediate problems >>>> >>>> ? On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in >>>> order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear >>>> definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) >>>> >>>> >>>> Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a >>>> mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have >>>> Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as >>>> SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. >>>> >>>> In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore >>>> the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don?t think that >>>> at this point the letter really says anything other than ?SCI is on hold >>>> and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.? I have to >>>> admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold >>>> as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a >>>> subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping >>>> gesture ? as in, ?we just don?t have time to deal with this right now due >>>> to ICG deadlines for accountability.? >>>> >>>> I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on >>>> February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of >>>> friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA >>>> transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us >>>> proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only >>>> one who objected to this previously.) >>>> >>>> If so, I?ll send another draft to the list. >>>> Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM >>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan >>>> Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; >>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> >>>> Anne, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to >>>> whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the >>>> end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many >>>> responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically >>>> can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for >>>> the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow >>>> we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a >>>> call. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Julie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: , Anne >>>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM >>>> To: Mary Wong , Greg Shatan >>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Avri Doria , >>>> Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> , Lori Schulman , >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen >>>> de Saint G?ry >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are >>>>> worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for >>>>> purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri?s comments. I >>>>> am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting >>>>> process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. >>>>> We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on >>>>> SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. >>>>> >>>>> My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI >>>>> >>>>> 2. Discuss the nature of ?periodic review? in the work of SCI. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Review draft of letter as revised. >>>>> >>>>> 4. AOB >>>>> >>>>> 5. Adjourn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Anne >>>>> >>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] >>>>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM >>>>> To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori >>>>> Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add >>>>> what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which >>>>> relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the >>>>> potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold >>>>> following its last meeting on 15 January; see >>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It >>>>> is therefore a topic already on the Council?s radar as a possible topic >>>>> for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather >>>>> than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council >>>>> inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council >>>>> takes up consideration of the issue again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the >>>>> October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI >>>>> recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to >>>>> consider the SCI?s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and >>>>> further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ?a >>>>> broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures?: see >>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 ? an exercise which >>>>> the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating >>>>> Procedures). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the >>>>> SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of >>>>> or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review ? at a minimum, we assume >>>>> this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating >>>>> Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the >>>>> final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore >>>>> respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the >>>>> GNSO Council?s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO >>>>> Review rather than a ?periodic review? by the SCI, and perhaps the final >>>>> paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to >>>>> provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not >>>>> part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so >>>>> that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft >>>>> letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations >>>>> for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their >>>>> work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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: Greg Shatan >>>>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" >>>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund , Avri Doria , >>>>> Thomas Rickert , Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>> , Lori Schulman , >>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" , Glen >>>>> de Saint G?ry >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled >>>>>> meeting will further inspire us to do so.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also >>>>>> available as an editable Google Doc at >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5 >>>>>> fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as >>>>>> "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open >>>>>> of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added >>>>>> language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the >>>>>> GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining >>>>>> issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains >>>>>> ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is >>>>>> not in the actual Operating Procedures). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this >>>>>> out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I look forward to your responses. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gregory S. Shatan >>>>>> >>>>>> Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab >>>>>> >>>>>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 >>>>>> >>>>>> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 >>>>>> >>>>>> gsshatan at lawabel.com >>>>>> >>>>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> www.lawabel.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Julie, >>>>>> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was >>>>>> no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. >>>>>> As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that >>>>>> addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the >>>>>> deadline. >>>>>> >>>>>> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I >>>>>> would appreciate your doing this today. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> >>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM >>>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> Knoben >>>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>>> Importance: High >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Anne, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call >>>>>> that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very >>>>>> busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I >>>>>> would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to >>>>>> provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful >>>>>> if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the >>>>>> letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to >>>>>> support it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Julie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: , Anne >>>>>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM >>>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' , 'Thomas Rickert' , >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman , Julie Hedlund >>>>>> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >>>>>> , Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per >>>>>>> the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the >>>>>>> call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds >>>>>>> like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen >>>>>>> de Saint G?ry >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Belated apologies for missing the meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? >>>>>>> I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had >>>>>>> been taken during the call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of >>>>>>> course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated >>>>>>> in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed >>>>>>> them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit >>>>>>> in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was >>>>>>> ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this >>>>>>> before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council >>>>>>> requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo >>>>>>> work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of >>>>>>> opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been >>>>>>> a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, >>>>>>> I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can not support the letter as it stands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we >>>>>>> knew the results of any reorganizational review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on >>>>>>> Tuesday?s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply >>>>>>> them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on >>>>>>> the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this >>>>>>> letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting >>>>>>> separately there.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM >>>>>>> To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>>>> Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; >>>>>>> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings >>>>>>> & Transcripts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Same here. Sorry! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thomas >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt >>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund >>>>>>> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint G?ry' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings >>>>>>> & Transcripts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in >>>>>>> accordance with comments received during today?s meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>>>>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ?on hold? last week by >>>>>>> Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is >>>>>>> part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information >>>>>>> as to action taken by Council affecting its work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until >>>>>>> the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks everyone who participated in today?s call. We will be >>>>>>> circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our >>>>>>> letter and request for time on the Council?s work schedule for Singapore >>>>>>> reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February >>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori >>>>>>> Schulman >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM >>>>>>> To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & >>>>>>> Transcripts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Below is the link for last week?s intersessional. I didn?t find the >>>>>>> joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lori >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel >>>>>>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 >>>>>>> ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, >>>>>>> distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please >>>>>>> notify the >>>>>>> sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message >>>>>>> and any >>>>>>> >>>>>>> attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus >>>>>>> free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5041 bytes Desc: not available URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Tue Jan 27 19:59:34 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:59:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the "periodic review" responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply "tweak" the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics - 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff's modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to "periodic review", the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its "periodic review" work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri's report is as follows: (a) under the "immediate review" responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the "friendly amendments" issue that was put "on hold" by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03A2B.C98118B0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From lori.schulman at ascd.org Tue Jan 27 20:48:57 2015 From: lori.schulman at ascd.org (Lori Schulman) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:48:57 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Dear Anne, Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction. Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org [cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0] 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: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:00 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the "periodic review" responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply "tweak" the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics - 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff's modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to "periodic review", the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its "periodic review" work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri's report is as follows: (a) under the "immediate review" responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the "friendly amendments" issue that was put "on hold" by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne [cid:image003.gif at 01D03A48.C138DD10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2186 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: From angie at webgroup.com Tue Jan 27 21:22:36 2015 From: angie at webgroup.com (Angie Graves) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:22:36 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Message-ID: Dear Anne, I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan. Thank you for your time on this. Angie On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: > Dear Anne, > > > > Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with > your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for > direction. > > > > Lori > > > > > > > > *Lori S. Schulman* ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > [image: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0] > > > > > > *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:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:00 PM > *To:* 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > To all SCI members and to Staff, > > To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI > work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think > this report should note the following: > > 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI > considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day > waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus > Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the > ?periodic review? responsibility delineated in the Charter. > > 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was > obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we > could simply ?tweak? the draft letter to Council that was presented prior > to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call > about the basic points to be covered in the letter. > > 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the > January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested > topics ? 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr > also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this > issue. > > 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of > objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested > further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed > with staff?s modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no > other SCI members weighed in. > > 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to > another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was > cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. > > As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding > the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: > > > > 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by > any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the > topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be > conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that > Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask > Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether > SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but > actually helping to reduce that workload.) > > > > 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to ?periodic review?, > the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes > the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its ?periodic > review? work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The > Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair > believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the > results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a > clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review > responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO > reviews the final recommendations. > > > > 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to > be made in the course of the delivery of Avri?s report is as follows: > > (a) under the ?immediate review? responsibility in the Charter, should > SCI study the ?friendly amendments? issue that was put ?on hold? by Council > in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on > this issue? > > (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and > begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council > for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review > until further direction from Council? > > The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about > the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests > that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI > should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a > positive aspect of ICANN accountability. > > > > Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO > Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final > recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until > further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell > us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman at LRRLaw.com ** | www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > > > *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org > ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > > > Anne, > > > > Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: > > > > *"Reporting* > > At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide > the GNSO Council with an update concerning: > > - The issues dealt with and related status > - Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council > - An activity timeline" > > Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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. > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.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: 2186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 27 22:26:08 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:26:08 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54C81080.3000604@acm.org> Hi, Excuse me, why do you assume that you can write a letter, have a single call and call that consensus? avri On 27-Jan-15 14:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > To all SCI members and to Staff, > > To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on > SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. > I think this report should note the following: > > 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI > considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 > day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG > Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and > guidelines under the ?periodic review? responsibility delineated in > the Charter. > > 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was > obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was > thought we could simply ?tweak? the draft letter to Council that was > presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement > expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. > > 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend > the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the > suggested topics ? 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus > Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not > directly considered this issue. > > 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of > objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested > further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair > disagreed with staff?s modifications and the liaison mostly agreed > with them but no other SCI members weighed in. > > 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation > to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call > was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. > > As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement > regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: > > > > 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced > by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing > up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw > poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to > say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri > should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to > be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the > workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) > > > > 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to ?periodic > review?, the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff > apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO > directs its ?periodic review? work plan after seeing the final results > of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this > approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, > SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule > calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with > timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the > Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final > recommendations. > > > > 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council > to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri?s report is as follows: > > (a) under the ?immediate review? responsibility in the Charter, > should SCI study the ?friendly amendments? issue that was put ?on > hold? by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further > deliberations by Council on this issue? > > (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out > and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to > Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for > periodic review until further direction from Council? > > The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned > about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully > suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, > and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its > work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. > > > > Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO > Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final > recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do > until further direction is received from Council. We will count on > Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have > anything to do or not. > > Anne > > > > ** > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725* > > *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com _**| www.LRRLaw.com > * > > > > > > ** > > > > > * * > > > > *From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council > Chair Jonathan Robinson > > > > Anne, > > > > Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: > > > > *"Reporting* > > At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall > provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: > > * The issues dealt with and related status > * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council > * An activity timeline" > > Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 27 22:44:14 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:44:14 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> Hi, I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time. I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being run. And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided. SCI has always been a deliberative body. We discuss things more that once and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a meeting. Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in one meeting. This seems like a excellent practices. And while in the past that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may make such a practice necessary. As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion. As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter. Or perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report. thanks avri On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote: > Dear Anne, > > I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan. > > Thank you for your time on this. > > Angie > > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman > wrote: > > Dear Anne, > > > > Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I > agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the > request for direction. > > > > Lori > > > > > > * * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 28 01:51:13 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:51:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <54C81080.3000604@acm.org> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C81080.3000604@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C25F0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Avri, it may be helpful for you to listen to the mp3 recording of the call. Certainly I considered your comments after the call as reflecting a lack of consensus and have tried to be respectful of that view. The draft letter was sent out on the Friday before the call. We did not hear back from you on that. The mp3 of the call speaks for itself with regard to the degree of agreement from those participating. This does not take away from the fact that you did not agree and so we tried to resolve differences on the list subsequent to the call. I personally tried to do so by eliminating the two items you specifically objected to in order to try to meet the deadline. Again, my suggestion is that as primary, you listen to the mp3 from January 20 and perhaps also consult with Stefania about that call. I realize you are extremely busy with ICANN commitments and we certainly respect your role as Council liaison. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03A62.39612C20] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Excuse me, why do you assume that you can write a letter, have a single call and call that consensus? avri On 27-Jan-15 14:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the "periodic review" responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply "tweak" the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics - 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff's modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to "periodic review", the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its "periodic review" work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri's report is as follows: (a) under the "immediate review" responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the "friendly amendments" issue that was put "on hold" by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03A62.39612C20] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 28 02:18:27 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 02:18:27 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to Council. Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to ?never make a decision in one meeting?. We can certainly discuss this within SCI on our next call. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03A64.92D99CE0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:44 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time. I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being run. And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided. SCI has always been a deliberative body. We discuss things more that once and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a meeting. Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in one meeting. This seems like a excellent practices. And while in the past that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may make such a practice necessary. As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion. As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter. Or perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report. thanks avri On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote: Dear Anne, I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan. Thank you for your time on this. Angie On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman > wrote: Dear Anne, Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction. Lori ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 28 05:05:27 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:05:27 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> Hi, I will just followup with a few remarks. Probably no more that a few minutes. I would say that your report be no longer than 10 minutes with time for questions. Thank you for reclaiming your repsonsiblity for this report. I am grateful that we were reminded of our charter. Would probably do for those of us who haven't read in a while to reread it. I will do so before the meeting to make sure we are strictly adhering to its guidance. Wouldn't do for us to be advising others on process when we ourselves are not quite kosher in our practices. As for the no decision in one meeting practice. You call it a protocol. I called it a common practice, and perhaps even common sense, used in many groups, but nowhere codified. Personally I first started using the practice back when we were doing the weekly calls to find consensus on the new gTLD program. Many have used it since then. I am surprised that no WG or other you participated in, used the technique. But in any case, it is a voluntary practice. We never did it explicitly in SCI, because previous chairs were careful to be deliberate and make sure there was enough bottom-up discussion to develop a position before a decision was made. This generally takes a few meetings. Often members have to go back to their constituencies before they can give final approval. That is a lesson you yourself have shown by example on many occasions. I understand the enthusiasm of a new chair to make the trains run on time, but the SCI is supposed to be slow, plodding and deliberative. Our role is essentially conservative, only touching and fixing that which needs to be fixed. We are not here to craft new ways of doing things, just to help out when something is not working right. Sure we should do the best we can to cover eventualities when asked to deal with an issue, but opening an issue just becasue someone thought of a new posbility that might be significant someday, may be stretching our mission. And as Mary's note indicated, several of the points in your letter seemed to be contrary to prior positions of the group. It is fine to change direction, but that should only be done after the previous opinion is explored and understood and the group reaches new consensus. Thanks avri On 27-Jan-15 21:18, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we > split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out > who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones > etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both > the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to > Council. > > > > Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January > 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to > ?never make a decision in one meeting?. We can certainly discuss this > within SCI on our next call. > > Anne > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Wed Jan 28 14:57:06 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:57:06 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <85BD18C5-DE58-466B-A3DA-785F30D10FAD@egyptig.org> Hi, For what it?s worth, I did put this into the AC room chat during the SCI?s last call: ?I would, as Greg suggested, postpone the review of the consensus levels after the GNSO review is done. I believe this is what we had planned at the time this came up.? This was, if I recall correctly, in response to what Greg had said: ?With regard to the consensus level issue, this is one that unlike the other two I think actually may be best dealt with after the GNSO review and the Westlake Report and all that stuff comes out because I think that may conceivably relate to some of the output of that." So I am in favour of NOT working on a review of the consensus levels until after the GNSO review is done, and we have the Westlake recommendations. If I also recall correctly, one of the chief concerns with simultaneously dealing with the 10-day rule waiver and the resubmitted motions was that they would be best dealt with using amendments to the operating procedures in two different sections. This might have necessitated two separate SCI projects with two separate public comment periods. That was a valid enough reason to deal with one and then the other, and I factored that in when the decision was made to not include resubmitted motions with the waiver. I still do think we should work on getting this done. It doesn?t make much sense to me to not have the waiver apply to resubmitted motions. There are plenty of safeguards in both processes to ensure they are not abused. The SCI did some pretty good work on those when we came up with out recommendations. Again?, for the record, I?m also fine picking up the task of formalising procedures for friendly amendments as soon as we can, and as soon as the GNSO council deems it appropriate/practical. There is no mention of how friendly amendments are used in the GNSO operating procedures, but they are used quite frequently, and often become problematic. Thanks. Amr On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to Council. > > Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to ?never make a decision in one meeting?. We can certainly discuss this within SCI on our next call. > Anne > > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:44 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > > Hi, > > I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time. > I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being run. > And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided. > > SCI has always been a deliberative body. We discuss things more that once and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a meeting. Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in one meeting. This seems like a excellent practices. And while in the past that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may make such a practice necessary. > > As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion. > > As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter. Or perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report. > > thanks > > avri > > On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote: > Dear Anne, > > I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan. > > Thank you for your time on this. > > Angie > > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: > Dear Anne, > > Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction. > > Lori > > > > > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 28 15:24:23 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 10:24:23 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Friendly Amendments was Re: [] SCI Letter ... In-Reply-To: <85BD18C5-DE58-466B-A3DA-785F30D10FAD@egyptig.org> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <85BD18C5-DE58-466B-A3DA-785F30D10FAD@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <54C8FF27.5050701@acm.org> Hi, On 28-Jan-15 09:57, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Again?, for the record, I?m also fine picking up the task of > formalising procedures for friendly amendments as soon as we can, and > as soon as the GNSO council deems it appropriate/practical. There is > no mention of how friendly amendments are used in the GNSO operating > procedures, but they are used quite frequently, and often become > problematic. This one is thorny. Friendly amendments are not defined anywhere. In fact, Roberts Rules, specifically ricules the possiblity of such things being valid. The ordinary claim is that once a motion is made it no longer belongs to the person who made the motion but belongs to the group, in this case the council, itself. I tried to open this issue for discussion when I first became chair of the GNSO, but was quickly convinced that as new chair who had to tread carefully, this was not a subject the GNSO or its council was ready to deal with. It was a trusted practice, and I learned to leave it alone. Perhaps now, though, almost a decade later, the GNSO may be ready to deal with this issue. I think it is a very intersting issue for the SCI to work on. One change that has been made in the internal process, since my first time in the council, is that now not only the motioner has to approve the friendly, but the seconder is asked to as well. Not sure when this change was made or how it came into practice, but it seems to be the practice now. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 28 16:01:03 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:01:03 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julie.hedlund at icann.org Wed Jan 28 16:16:46 2015 From: julie.hedlund at icann.org (Julie Hedlund) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:16:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Hi Avri, > Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of > the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) > Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN > public meeting. > > Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on > the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our > working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any > inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have > you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? > > Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today > with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. > > Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions > to the list. > Anne > > > > > > > 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. -------------- 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 Jan 28 16:16:56 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:16:56 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: I?m just trying to keep up with and would like to suggest the following: 1.. Council report: don?t go to those details of how items are dealt with by different participants! Just highlight the items, the status and timeline of discussion and the advantage the council (and the GNSO) may take from resolving the item. Otherwise doubts may arise regarding the SCI capability to deal with the tasks. 2.. Letter to council: I have doubts that asking the council through a letter would advance the work flow. I see a better chance to highlight the items ? which have to be agreed in advance on the SCI list ? together with the report in Singapore and make sure they are taken to the council action item list if a response is requested. It would be even better to make suggestions to the council what tasks the SCI is going to deal with. Obviously this needs SCI consensus in advance. But if we don?t achieve consensus here no clear guidance from the council can be expected ? since the basic structure of both entities. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:59 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert ; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the ?periodic review? responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply ?tweak? the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics ? 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff?s modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to ?periodic review?, the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its ?periodic review? work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri?s report is as follows: (a) under the ?immediate review? responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the ?friendly amendments? issue that was put ?on hold? by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: a.. The issues dealt with and related status b.. Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council c.. An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------- 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: From avri at acm.org Wed Jan 28 17:05:46 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:05:46 -0500 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <54C916EA.7030509@acm.org> On 28-Jan-15 11:01, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Yes, i read it quickly a while back. I even just reread to try and figure out why you keep asking me this. The only thing I can find is an implicit request that instead of just reporting on the SCI to the council, the liaison should also report to the SCI on the council. No problem. Speaking as the liaison I am happy to have that as part of the regular SCI agenda. Understanding the task of the liaison role is evolving and this seems totally reasonable to me as a function of the role. Was that what you were looking for? Otherwise from reading the letter, and speaking now as a primary member who intends to remain one until such time as Stefania tells me she is ready to take on the primary role and we switch roles, I think that the process used to agree on the letter was rushed and did not take into account any discussion time. I am a bit surprised, now having reread the transcript with a searching intent, that the items 3 and 4 showed up on your revised version in the manner they did. I also saw no call for consensus on the letter, just a lack of dissent in the last seconds of the call. there was no call for consensus on the list either that I saw. As I said previously, I am concerned with SCI processes, and lack of strictness in its practices. As a member, the top down approach to letter writing does not seem the best example for this group to follow. Also I feel that in moving ahead with the letter, the concerns of those on the call may not have been fully factored in, but they would have to speak to that - though perhaps some have already given their indication in one form or another. I also noticed something I think I have noticed before and that is how few people spoke up during the meeting. Thanks avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 28 17:55:12 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:55:12 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5C8D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C15938.6020604@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B5DB0@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6B89C7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAEC3@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BAFA7@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BB4CB@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C79D43.4000404@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BC1BF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B28@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. Agree with point 1 and of course point 2 is of course why we circulated a draft letter and held the January 20 call. You note "It wold be even better to make suggestions to the council what tasks the SCI is going to deal with" Could we have your thoughts on this? Thank you, Anne From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson I'm just trying to keep up with and would like to suggest the following: 1. Council report: don't go to those details of how items are dealt with by different participants! Just highlight the items, the status and timeline of discussion and the advantage the council (and the GNSO) may take from resolving the item. Otherwise doubts may arise regarding the SCI capability to deal with the tasks. 1. Letter to council: I have doubts that asking the council through a letter would advance the work flow. I see a better chance to highlight the items - which have to be agreed in advance on the SCI list - together with the report in Singapore and make sure they are taken to the council action item list if a response is requested. It would be even better to make suggestions to the council what tasks the SCI is going to deal with. Obviously this needs SCI consensus in advance. But if we don't achieve consensus here no clear guidance from the council can be expected - since the basic structure of both entities. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:59 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert ; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the "periodic review" responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply "tweak" the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics - 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff's modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to "periodic review", the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its "periodic review" work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri's report is as follows: (a) under the "immediate review" responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the "friendly amendments" issue that was put "on hold" by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03AE8.E39FD1B0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 28 18:07:01 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:07:01 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B43@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03AEA.8A786A50] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 28 18:18:12 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:18:12 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <85BD18C5-DE58-466B-A3DA-785F30D10FAD@egyptig.org> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <85BD18C5-DE58-466B-A3DA-785F30D10FAD@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B66@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Thanks Amr. As I understand it, you do favor the taking up of the 10 day waiver rule work in connection with the resubmission of motions sooner rather than later whereas Avri does not and you do favor taking up again with Council the topic of friendly amendments? Is that correct? Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03AEC.1A834DD0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 7:57 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, For what it's worth, I did put this into the AC room chat during the SCI's last call: "I would, as Greg suggested, postpone the review of the consensus levels after the GNSO review is done. I believe this is what we had planned at the time this came up." This was, if I recall correctly, in response to what Greg had said: "With regard to the consensus level issue, this is one that unlike the other two I think actually may be best dealt with after the GNSO review and the Westlake Report and all that stuff comes out because I think that may conceivably relate to some of the output of that." So I am in favour of NOT working on a review of the consensus levels until after the GNSO review is done, and we have the Westlake recommendations. If I also recall correctly, one of the chief concerns with simultaneously dealing with the 10-day rule waiver and the resubmitted motions was that they would be best dealt with using amendments to the operating procedures in two different sections. This might have necessitated two separate SCI projects with two separate public comment periods. That was a valid enough reason to deal with one and then the other, and I factored that in when the decision was made to not include resubmitted motions with the waiver. I still do think we should work on getting this done. It doesn't make much sense to me to not have the waiver apply to resubmitted motions. There are plenty of safeguards in both processes to ensure they are not abused. The SCI did some pretty good work on those when we came up with out recommendations. Again..., for the record, I'm also fine picking up the task of formalising procedures for friendly amendments as soon as we can, and as soon as the GNSO council deems it appropriate/practical. There is no mention of how friendly amendments are used in the GNSO operating procedures, but they are used quite frequently, and often become problematic. Thanks. Amr On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne > wrote: Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to Council. Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to "never make a decision in one meeting". We can certainly discuss this within SCI on our next call. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:44 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time. I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being run. And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided. SCI has always been a deliberative body. We discuss things more that once and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a meeting. Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in one meeting. This seems like a excellent practices. And while in the past that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may make such a practice necessary. As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion. As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter. Or perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report. thanks avri On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote: Dear Anne, I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan. Thank you for your time on this. Angie On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman > wrote: Dear Anne, Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction. Lori ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Wed Jan 28 18:39:19 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:39:19 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B43@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B43@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hello all ? one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that?s shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest. This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council?s further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings. If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that ? if the final version is agreed on? the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. We hope this suggestion is helpful. 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: , Anne Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on > the list. > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > > Anne, > > > > I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your > message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If > you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately > in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using > for Singapore presentations. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM > To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > >> >> Hi Avri, >> Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of >> the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) >> Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN >> public meeting. >> >> Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking >> on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our >> working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any >> inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. >> Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? >> >> Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today >> with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. >> >> Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions >> to the list. >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. > > > > 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. > -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Wed Jan 28 18:59:38 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 19:59:38 +0100 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B66@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <85BD18C5-DE58-466B-A3DA-785F30D10FAD@egyptig.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B66@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <7516A242-7633-478A-A7D9-5E3E2C754674@egyptig.org> Hi Anne, On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > Thanks Amr. As I understand it, you do favor the taking up of the 10 day waiver rule work in connection with the resubmission of motions sooner rather than later Yes?, that is correct. I do, however, believe we need to place this in the correct context when explaining our rationale to the council. I had offered the amendment to the council motion regarding the 10-day rule waiver, making sure that it was clear to the councillors voting on the motion that this did not affect the rules regarding resubmission of motions. To be sure of this, myself, I dug up the SCI email archives and transcripts that supported my belief; that this was indeed the intent of the SCI. I suggest we revisit any and all references in preparation for whatever proposal we submit to the council on this matter. It seems to me that we need to be very consistent in our own decision-making in order to provide the council with very solid and confident recommendations. Since joining the SCI, this committee has always been praised for its excessive use of due diligence to come up with confident recommendations that have always achieved unanimity in our consensus, and until very recently, also the unanimity of council votes on the recommendations we provided. > whereas Avri does not Avri would need to clarify this herself. My personal understanding (and I may be mistaken) was that she was not very much in favour of this being revisited, but would abstain from disagreeing with the rest of the committee. If I?ve understood her correctly, her strong disagreement was with trying to tackle the issue of revision of the GNSO decision-making designations (consensus levels) until we have a clearer picture of what the full GNSO review would include. I share this same belief. > and you do favor taking up again with Council the topic of friendly amendments? Yes?, very much so. Thanks. Amr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 28 20:57:09 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:57:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B43@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4C9B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Mary, Based on what I am seeing on the list, this schedule will be entirely too ambitious and rushed. As previously mentioned, I am out of commission both Thursday and Friday (speaking at AIPLA mid-winter). We have previously agreed on ten minutes for the Chair's report and questions and 5 minutes for Avri's comments as liaison. In the mean time, we are soliciting further comments on the list as to each member's views on the topics. There will only be 2 or 3 slides and they will be based on the feedback received on the list. These do not need to be turned in by February 1 based on past practice. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03B02.4EB2ABD0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hello all - one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that's shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest. This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council's further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings. If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that - if the final version is agreed on- the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. We hope this suggestion is helpful. 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: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03B02.4EB2ABD0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: From AAikman at lrrlaw.com Wed Jan 28 21:09:42 2015 From: AAikman at lrrlaw.com (Aikman-Scalese, Anne) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:09:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B43@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4C9B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4CCE@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> That's okay Lori - thought you were coming for some reason. I am fine giving the Chair's report remotely. Will plan to set my alarm. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03B04.0FBA4D00] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Mary Wong'; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson To clarify, I am participating remotely. I will not be physically present in Singapore. Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org [cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0] 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, January 28, 2015 3:57 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Mary, Based on what I am seeing on the list, this schedule will be entirely too ambitious and rushed. As previously mentioned, I am out of commission both Thursday and Friday (speaking at AIPLA mid-winter). We have previously agreed on ten minutes for the Chair's report and questions and 5 minutes for Avri's comments as liaison. In the mean time, we are soliciting further comments on the list as to each member's views on the topics. There will only be 2 or 3 slides and they will be based on the feedback received on the list. These do not need to be turned in by February 1 based on past practice. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03B04.0FBA4D00] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hello all - one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that's shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest. This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council's further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings. If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that - if the final version is agreed on- the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. We hope this suggestion is helpful. 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: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif at 01D03B04.0FBA4D00] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ 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. -------------- 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: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2186 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From lori.schulman at ascd.org Wed Jan 28 21:00:40 2015 From: lori.schulman at ascd.org (Lori Schulman) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 21:00:40 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4C9B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B43@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4C9B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: To clarify, I am participating remotely. I will not be physically present in Singapore. Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org [cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0] 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, January 28, 2015 3:57 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Mary, Based on what I am seeing on the list, this schedule will be entirely too ambitious and rushed. As previously mentioned, I am out of commission both Thursday and Friday (speaking at AIPLA mid-winter). We have previously agreed on ten minutes for the Chair's report and questions and 5 minutes for Avri's comments as liaison. In the mean time, we are soliciting further comments on the list as to each member's views on the topics. There will only be 2 or 3 slides and they will be based on the feedback received on the list. These do not need to be turned in by February 1 based on past practice. Thank you, Anne [cid:image003.gif at 01D03B13.8FD6C9A0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hello all - one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that's shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest. This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council's further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings. If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that - if the final version is agreed on- the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. We hope this suggestion is helpful. 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: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund >, 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image003.gif at 01D03B13.8FD6C9A0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: , Anne > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2186 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3765 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: From mary.wong at icann.org Thu Jan 29 02:46:02 2015 From: mary.wong at icann.org (Mary Wong) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:46:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson In-Reply-To: <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4C9B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> References: <54C814BE.9070000@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <54C86E17.8020807@acm.org> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C29DF@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4B43@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> <3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C4C9B@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com> Message-ID: Hi Anne, no worries ? we merely wanted to make sure that you and the SCI are apprised of all the various options that are available. Perhaps this will be helpful for future reference as well. 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: , Anne Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 04:57 To: Mary Wong , Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > Mary, > Based on what I am seeing on the list, this schedule will be entirely too > ambitious and rushed. As previously mentioned, I am out of commission both > Thursday and Friday (speaking at AIPLA mid-winter). We have previously agreed > on ten minutes for the Chair?s report and questions and 5 minutes for Avri?s > comments as liaison. In the mean time, we are soliciting further comments on > the list as to each member?s views on the topics. > > There will only be 2 or 3 slides and they will be based on the feedback > received on the list. These do not need to be turned in by February 1 based > on past practice. > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 > AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com > > > > > From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:39 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > > Hello all ? one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may > be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the > SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the > Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the > session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and > high-level points of the update that?s shown on screen. The 15 minutes can > then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role > as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for > the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI > members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications > on points of interest. > > > > This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view > toward the Council?s further discussing any issues raised in one of its > subsequent meetings. > > > > If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to > this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be > received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so > that ? if the final version is agreed on? the written update can be sent on to > the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. > > > > We hope this suggestion is helpful. > > > > 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: , Anne > Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 > To: Julie Hedlund , 'Avri Doria' , > "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" > Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan > Robinson > > >> >> Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on >> the list. >> Anne >> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> >> >> >> >> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >> Anne, >> >> >> >> I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your >> message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. >> If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me >> separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we >> are using for Singapore presentations. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> From: , Anne >> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM >> To: 'Avri Doria' , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" >> >> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >> Jonathan Robinson >> >> >>> >>> Hi Avri, >>> Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair?s Report for the first ten minutes of >>> the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) >>> Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each >>> ICANN public meeting. >>> >>> Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking >>> on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our >>> working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don?t think there were any >>> inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. >>> Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? >>> >>> Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today >>> with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. >>> >>> Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions >>> to the list. >>> Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> 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. >> -------------- 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: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5044 bytes Desc: not available URL: