[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Julie Hedlund
julie.hedlund at icann.org
Tue Jan 27 17:45:53 UTC 2015
Anne,
Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter:
"Reporting
At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the
GNSO Council with an update concerning:
* The issues dealt with and related status
* Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council
* An activity timeline"
Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:16 AM
To: 'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org"
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Cc: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
<wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair
Jonathan Robinson
> Avri,
> The letter was proposed so that in fact SCI could reach consensus with regard
> to what SCI is communicating to Council. I think Greg in particular was quite
> frustrated by what was communicated regarding the 10 day waiver issue last
> year and felt that there was actually no consensus within SCI as to the effect
> on resubmission of a motion. This resulted in a ³no² 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 Council¹s 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. I¹m sure Council can use the 15 minutes.
> Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today¹s call so that
> should be cancelled as well.
>
> Thank you,
> Anne
>
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <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 ³clarification of
>> procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments². 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 Council¹s 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, I¹d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention
>> in suggesting edits to Greg¹s version of the letter, specifically in relation
>> to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the
>> SCI¹s 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 ³consistent review plan² 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 SCI¹s
>> draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the
>> GNSO¹s 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>
>> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25
>> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>,
>> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> Cc: 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
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 Greg¹s draft and has the following points:
>>>
>>> 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council
>>> meeting as to ³friendly amendments² being on hold , but urges council to
>>> consider assigning the ³Friendly amendments² 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 ³Voting Thresholds²
>>> 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 SCI¹s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in
>>> its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is
>>> received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon
>>> SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review
>>> to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming
>>> Westlake Report.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid
>>> scheduling another call.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Anne
>>>
>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <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; 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>
>>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM
>>> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, Mary Wong
>>> <mary.wong at icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: 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
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 ³immediate problems² referred by Council and ³periodic
>>>> review of all procedures and guidelines². 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 don¹t think that
>>>> at this point the letter really says anything other than ³SCI is on hold
>>>> and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.² 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, ³we just don¹t have time to deal with this right now due
>>>> to ICG deadlines for accountability.²
>>>>
>>>> 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, I¹ll send another draft to the list.
>>>> Anne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com <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; 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>
>>>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM
>>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 Avri¹s 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 ³periodic review² in the work of SCI.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Review draft of letter as revised.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. AOB
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Adjourn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Anne
>>>>>
>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com <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; 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 Council¹s 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 SCI¹s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and
>>>>> further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ³a
>>>>> broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures²: 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 Council¹s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO
>>>>> Review rather than a ³periodic review² by the SCI, and perhaps the final
>>>>> paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to
>>>>> provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not
>>>>> part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so
>>>>> that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft
>>>>> letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations
>>>>> for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their
>>>>> work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>>
>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>
>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>>>>>
>>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>> 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-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5
>>>>>> fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as
>>>>>> "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open
>>>>>> of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added
>>>>>> language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the
>>>>>> GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining
>>>>>> issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains
>>>>>> ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is
>>>>>> not in the actual Operating Procedures).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this
>>>>>> out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I look forward to your responses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregory S. Shatan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gsshatan at lawabel.com <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> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Julie,
>>>>>> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was
>>>>>> no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done.
>>>>>> As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that
>>>>>> addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the
>>>>>> deadline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I
>>>>>> would appreciate your doing this today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Anne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725
>>>>>> <tel:520.879.4725>
>>>>>> AAikman at LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman at LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com
>>>>>> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org]
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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; 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
>>>>>>> Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply
>>>>>>> them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on
>>>>>>> the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this
>>>>>>> letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting
>>>>>>> separately there.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Anne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
>>>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
>>>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 <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; 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 <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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 today¹s meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff
>>>>>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² 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 today¹s call. We will be
>>>>>>> circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our
>>>>>>> letter and request for time on the Council¹s 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] 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 week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the
>>>>>>> joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lori
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel
>>>>>>> 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678
>>>>>>> <tel: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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/b5831a50/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20150127/b5831a50/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20150127/b5831a50/smime.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-improvem-impl-sc
mailing list