Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI activity

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

A late response.  And to think I  am supposed to be the v-chair.

Anyway.

I. I am very nervous about the consent agenda idea.  I would like to hear more 
about 

1. Who gets to put it in the consent agenda. Is the chair alone enough or does 
it need unanimous consent of the leadership threesome
2. Does it need to be on the consent agenda when the agenda is first published?
3. is one person enough to remove it from the consent agenda?
4. How much time does someone have to remove it from the consent agenda?   Can 
it be removed at the last minute?
5. What can and can't be put on a consent agenda: a issue report request, a pdp 
vote, charters, drafting team policy recommendations, canceling a comment 
period?

I am inclined against it.  And incidentally was not happy the Board started 
doing it either.  I think too much stuff can either get swept under the rug, or 
passed without adequate discussion using such a mechanism.


II. I think reminding people of the function and existence of the SCI is a good 
idea.  And a letter is fine. Perhaps not this time around but next, we can 
arrange for each member of the  group to give a std presentation to their 
SG?Con the goings on, or lack thereof of the group.


III. Oh no, not another survey effort!!!

At this point I think this might be better done by the group reps and that 
standard presentation I spoke of.  the SCI reps should be the ones working 
their SG/C for problems or issues.  And if there are now, we should be happy 
that no problems have arisen.

III. Have we created our schedule yet of the periodic review processes we were 
going to be responsible for.  Perhaps we should pick something this year for 
review.

avri




On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:48, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear SCI members,
>  
> after a phase of silent months it's now the right moment to put some items to 
> the table which need input and recommendations from this committee.
>  
> 1.    Rules of procedure 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf)
> The GNSO council had a successful first run trial re a consent agenda which 
> should be put in a formal process. One rugh suggestion for this is as follows:
> 1. The Chair or meeting leader calls for any opposition to said item being in 
> the consent agenda. If any opposition is voiced, then that item is dropped 
> from the consent agenda (and can be re-introduced at any time in the main 
> agenda).
> 
> 2. If no opposition is voiced to the item being on the consent agenda, the 
> Chair or meeting leader calls for any opposition to the item itself. If any 
> opposition is voiced, then no action is taken (and the item can be 
> re-introduced at any time in the main agenda).
> 
> 3. If no opposition, the consent agenda item is deemed approved by theGNSO 
> Council.
> 
> Obviously we need to discuss this in more detail, e.g. the goal of a consent 
> agenda, which items could be included to a consent agenda and which should 
> definitely be excluded e.a. It seems to make sense to include the text - once 
> recommended - into chapter 3.0 of the rules "GNSO Council Meetings".
> 
> 2.    As discussed in Dakar, it might be worth sending out a reminder to the 
> GNSO Council and SG/C leaders regarding the mandate of the SCI and the 
> opportunity that exists to request review of GNSO Improvement related items. 
> To this end, thanks to Marika the attached draft letter has been prepared for 
> your consideration. Please feel free to comment.
> 
> 3.    Furthermore, in order to obtain feedback from WGs/DT on their 
> experience with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines - as it is intended in the 
> SCI charter - , it might be useful to develop a short survey which could 
> facilitate data gathering and input. In order to kick off the discussion here 
> are some bullet points:
> 
> • The objective of the survey would be to determine whether there are any 
> issues that were encountered by WG/Dts with the GNSO Working Group 
> Guidelines, and/or identify areas for improvement
> • If deemed effective, such a survey could become a standard part of the 
> self-evaluation process of WGs and provide the SCI with regular input on the 
> status of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines
>  
> Ideas for items to be included in the survey are welcome!
>  
>  
> I appreciate very much your response and hope to see most of you in Costa 
> Rica.
> Kind regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
> 
> <Outreach letter SCI.doc>