[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson

Amr Elsadr aelsadr at egyptig.org
Mon Jan 26 21:37:35 UTC 2015 

Hi,

Some comments in-line below:

On Jan 24, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> 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 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04
> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrlaw.com>
> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <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
>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
>> www.lawabel.com
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <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
>>>  
>>> <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: 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 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>
>>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM
>>> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <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
>>>>  
>>>> <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: 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 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
>>>>>  
>>>>> <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 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>:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 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 Géry'
>>>>>> 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 | (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
>>>>>> <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. 
>> 
> <image001.gif>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20150126/37cb941f/attachment.html>

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