[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Aikman-Scalese, Anne
AAikman at lrrlaw.com
Tue Jan 27 16:16:21 UTC 2015
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<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] 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 Géry
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<mailto: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.
________________________________
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/bbc7235e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20150127/bbc7235e/image001.gif>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list