<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I will just followup with a few remarks. Probably no more that a
few minutes. I would say that your report be no longer than 10
minutes with time for questions. Thank you for reclaiming your
repsonsiblity for this report. I am grateful that we were reminded
of our charter. Would probably do for those of us who haven't read
in a while to reread it. I will do so before the meeting to make
sure we are strictly adhering to its guidance. Wouldn't do for us
to be advising others on process when we ourselves are not quite
kosher in our practices.<br>
<br>
As for the no decision in one meeting practice. You call it a
protocol. I called it a common practice, and perhaps even common
sense, used in many groups, but nowhere codified. Personally I
first started using the practice back when we were doing the weekly
calls to find consensus on the new gTLD program. Many have used it
since then. I am surprised that no WG or other you participated in,
used the technique. But in any case, it is a voluntary practice.
We never did it explicitly in SCI, because previous chairs were
careful to be deliberate and make sure there was enough bottom-up
discussion to develop a position before a decision was made. This
generally takes a few meetings. Often members have to go back to
their constituencies before they can give final approval. That is a
lesson you yourself have shown by example on many occasions.<br>
<br>
I understand the enthusiasm of a new chair to make the trains run on
time, but the SCI is supposed to be slow, plodding and deliberative.
Our role is essentially conservative, only touching and fixing that
which needs to be fixed. We are not here to craft new ways of doing
things, just to help out when something is not working right. Sure
we should do the best we can to cover eventualities when asked to
deal with an issue, but opening an issue just becasue someone
thought of a new posbility that might be significant someday, may be
stretching our mission.<br>
<br>
And as Mary's note indicated, several of the points in your letter
seemed to be contrary to prior positions of the group. It is fine
to change direction, but that should only be done after the previous
opinion is explored and understood and the group reaches new
consensus.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27-Jan-15 21:18, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6C267F@lrodcmbx2.lrlaw.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15
minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our
respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give
the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones
etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation
that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison
provide a report to Council.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Let us know if you have further
thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or
transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to
“never make a decision in one meeting”. We can certainly
discuss this within SCI on our next call.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Anne</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>