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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Excuse me, why do you assume that you can write a letter, have a single
call and call that consensus? 

avri

On 27-Jan-15 14:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
> To all SCI members and to Staff,
>
> To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on
> SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely.
>   I think this report should note the following:
>
> 1.       In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI
> considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10
> day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG
> Consensus  Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and
> guidelines under the “periodic review” responsibility delineated in
> the Charter.
>
> 2.       We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was
> obtained and did not schedule another call at that time.  It was
> thought we could simply “tweak” the draft letter to Council that was
> presented prior to the January 20 call.  There was no disagreement
> expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter.
>
> 3.       It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend
> the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the
> suggested topics – 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus
> Guidelines.  Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not
> directly considered this issue.
>
> 4.       The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of
> objection listed in 3. and asked for further input.  Staff suggested
> further modifications which were sent to the list.  The Chair
> disagreed with staff’s modifications and the liaison mostly agreed
> with them but no other SCI members weighed in.    
>
> 5.       Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation
> to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call
> was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council.
>
> As Chair,  I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement
> regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points:
>
>  
>
> 1.       Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced
> by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing
> up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended  that a straw
> poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to
> say given that Council had put this issue on hold.  In my view, Avri
> should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to
> be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the
> workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.)
>
>  
>
> 2.       Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to “periodic
> review”, the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant.  Staff
> apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO
> directs its “periodic review” work plan after seeing the final results
> of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this
> approach.  The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore,
> SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule
> calls to begin work on  a clearly delineated proposed plan (with
> timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the
> Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final
> recommendations. 
>
>  
>
> 3.       Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council
> to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri’s report is as follows:
>
> (a)    under the “immediate review” responsibility in the Charter,
> should SCI study the “friendly amendments” issue that was put “on
> hold” by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further
> deliberations by Council on this issue? 
>
> (b)   Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out
> and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to
> Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for
> periodic review until further direction from Council? 
>
> The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned
> about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully
> suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council,
> and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its
> work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability.
>
>  
>
> Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all.  Obviously if GNSO
> Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final
> recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do
> until further direction is received from Council.  We will count on
> Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have
> anything to do or not.
>
> 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:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 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
>
>  
>
> 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
>
>     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/20150127/9df14b1c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/attachments/20150127/9df14b1c/attachment.gif>