AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] meeting

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri, I agree.

The SCI may - after the implementation by the board - pick up some points from 
the new PDP which the PDP team left for further discussion. The SCI will mainly 
deal with malfunctions of the processes implemented so far. 

Wolf-Ulrich 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Montag, 17. Oktober 2011 20:33
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] meeting


Hi,

I think the point is that this group is not really empowered to review the 
establishing of the new process, but is rather in the job of reviewing the 
implementation and how well the processes are working over time.  So when 
people say they should be reviewed after Board approval, I think they mean well 
after, i.e. after there is some experience, like maybe next year - unless 
someone brings up specific issues before then.

You are, of course, right that any changes at that point would need to be 
approved by the Board, and incidentally by the g-council prior to Board 
consideration.

avri

On 17 Oct 2011, at 14:01, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> 
> Wolf,
> Per the discussion in Singapore, I am wondering whether the Final Report from 
> the Policy Development Process Working Group to the GNSO is a matter for 
> consideration by SCI.  ICANN staff opined that SCI should not take this up 
> until after the ICANN Board had approved it.  However, at that point, it 
> seems to me that it would take another Board resolution for any 
> recommendations made by SCI to be adopted by the GNSO and then by the Board.  
>  
>  
> I may not understand how the SCI is supposed to work, but had understood its 
> function to be one of advising the GNSO with respect to recommendations made 
> to it.  If a recommendation is delayed until after ICANN Board approval, it 
> would seem the SCI may be less effective in its advisory role to the GNSO.
>  
> Perhaps "after the fact" review of recommendations to the GNSO is what was 
> intended.
>  
> Thank you,
> Anne
>  
> <image001.gif>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700
> One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxx * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
> 
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> 
> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the 
> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or 
> copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the 
> original message.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 2:02 AM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] meeting
> 
> Dear SCI colleagues,
> 
> As a result of our last F2F meeting in Singapore we've put our work more or 
> less on hold by waiting for input regarding issues raised by the GNSO council 
> or a group chartered by the council: no issue raised = no work - which could 
> make us happy...
> 
> At the moment I personally don't see a real issue at the table which would 
> force us to hold the FSF meeting in Dakar still scheduled on Sunday morning. 
> So I've asked Glen to remove it from the GNSO schedule.
> 
> I'll provide a short report to the council explaining the SCI status and 
> remind them about the possibility of raising issues for consideration with 
> the SCI. This message could also be sent to the SGs and Constituencies.
> 
> In addition I think we could now follow the idea from the Singapore meeting 
> of asking WGs or other affected parties about their experience with the new 
> WG procedures. A framework or list of questions can be developed after the 
> Dakar meeting for that purpose, and I'll take initiative on that.
> 
> I hope to see many of you in Dakar.
> 
> Kind regards 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> 
>  
> 
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
> www.lewisandroca.com.
> 
> Phoenix (602)262-5311         Minden (775)586-9500
> Tucson (520)622-2090          Albuquerque (505)764-5400
> Las Vegas (702)949-8200               Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
> Reno (775)823-2900            
> 
>   This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
> which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
> distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
> replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
> 
>   In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you 
> that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended 
> or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose 
> of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>