[council] Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement – Review of Input Received

[philippe.fouquart at orange.com]

Dear Councilors,

On behalf of Council leadership team, thanks for all the inputs received to date regarding the proposed Standing Committee for Continuous Improvement (SCCI). As a first step, in the overview that is attached to this email, we have tried to capture the different comments and suggestions in combination with responses and proposals for how these might be addressed. We would like to note that we are in no way wedded to the idea of creating a standing committee or other structure, but we are looking for the most effective and efficient way to undertake the work items that are on the Council’s and GNSO community’s list by either an SCCI or similar type of overarching framework.

Similarly, a number of you have pointed to the previous SCI and the possible need to first review the work that the SCI did before an SCCI would be created, but we want to be clear, although the SCI might be similar in name, this effort is not intended to recreate the SCI. The SCI had a very specific purpose, to oversee and address any possible negative effects coming out of the 2004 GNSO Review Implementation. It worked on issues such as submission of reports and motions, voting outside of a Council meeting and waiver of ten-day motion deadline. Eventually, its work was overtaken by the 2014 GNSO Review and it was deemed no longer fit for purpose. If there is an urgent need to review the SCI work products (which were also within scope for the 2014 GNSO Review and any subsequent GNSO review), the Council would need to add this to the ADR and determine the urgency in the context of the long list of other items that are already on there.

We also appreciate that there are still quite a few questions and further details are needed before it is possible to determine whether this is the path to follow, and notably on the risks of adding management overhead as a number of you highlighted , so we would like to suggest that the leadership team works together with the staff support team to put a further detailed outline and approach together factoring in your input following which the Council can hopefully make a determination on whether to proceed with creating a new SCCI or other structure. If not, the Council will need to urgently consider how and when to best tackle the different items on the ADR.

Regards,

Philippe, Pam and Tatiana


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210120/fab917f7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SCCI - input received - 15 January 2021.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16138 bytes
Desc: SCCI - input received - 15 January 2021.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210120/fab917f7/SCCI-inputreceived-15January2021-0001.docx>