[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Tue Jan 27 14:14:27 UTC 2015
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: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com
> <mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25
> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Cc: 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
>
> 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 <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com>_**|
> www.LRRLaw.com <http://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
> <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 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: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com
> <mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> *Cc: *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
>
>
>
> 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* <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com>*|
> **www.LRRLaw.com* <http://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
> <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
>
>
>
> 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: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com
> <mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM
> *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.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
>
>
>
> 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* <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com>*|
> **www.LRRLaw.com* <http://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
> <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
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
> *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* <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
>
>
>
> *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* <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.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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/20150127/6b77b39d/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list