[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sat Jan 24 18:38:23 UTC 2015
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 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04
> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrlaw.com
> <mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com>>
> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de
> <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman
> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>,
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>"
> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry
> <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> 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 <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> <AAikman at lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com>> 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 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725
> <tel:520.879.4725>*
>
> *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com>_**|
> www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
> **
>
>
>
>
> * *
>
>
>
> *From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org
> <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
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry
> *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: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com
> <mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM
> *To: *'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>,
> 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de
> <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
> *Cc: *Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org
> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>,
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>"
> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry
> <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> *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 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725
> <tel:520.879.4725>*
>
> *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com>_**|
> www.LRRLaw.com <http://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
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry
> *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 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F)
> 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>*
>
> *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com>_ |
> www.LRRLaw.com <http://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
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>; Glen de
> Saint Géry
> *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
> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>:
>
>
>
> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late
> after the Frankfurt meeting.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
> *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> <mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
>
> *To:* 'Lori Schulman'
> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>
> *Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen at icann.org>
>
> *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
>
>
>
> *<image002.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 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F)
> 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>*
>
> *_AAikman at LRRLaw.com
> <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com>_ | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * *
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <tel:703-575-5678>
> · Lori.Schulman at ascd.org
> <mailto:Lori.Schulman at ascd.org>
> <image003.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20150124/a26f1903/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list