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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ron,

I think we are not far away from each other and hope we can find common 
understanding of wht we are doing.

We've broken up into subgroups for the various topics. Marika established Wikis 
for the subgroups, and on May 08 she reached out to the SCI with the updated 
team members list asking for additional volunteers. Up to date I've not seen 
any additions. Nevertheless I think we could start working on the topics.

We should discuss today what the teams need to start working. Since the tasks 
seem to be not that "heavy" - although there may be differences between the 
teams - there is no "special working method" needed (charter, mailing list 
e.a.). Any team member could start rolling the ball with a first suggestion. 
But maybe someone should lead the process. From the minutes of the last meeting 
I thought you or Angie was taking the lead in one of the groups (motion 
deferrals). As you say there was no discussion initiated within all teams we 
should today solve this lack of communication.

I'm very happy to see Avri's proposal on the proxy voting topic. It will help 
the WT (and the SCI) to continue.

Looking forward to hearing you and all later

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2012 22:32
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting

Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all,

If I recall correctly, what we discussed in the first call post San Jose was
breaking our entire group into sub-groups around each topic that the SCI
needs to address.

These sub-groups were to be tasked with gathering the background information
surrounding the topics to bring all of the members of the SCI up to speed on
all of them. (So that those of us who are not well-versed on each topic
would have some context within which we could consider the issues at
question.)

In the second call, we discussed reaching out to the entire SCI to ask
members who had not yet volunteered to any of the sub-group to ask them to
do so.  We also tackled one of the topics directly and moved it quite far
down the field.

When I look at the agenda for tomorrow's call, I am confused about what we
are doing.  I know that there has been zero dialogue within the two work
teams that I am noted on, so I am not sure what these teams are doing and
what should be presented tomorrow.

>From the agenda, it appears that we are walking down two alternative tracks
simultaneously: One track to break down into sub-groups to gather the
background context to enlighten and enable us to affectively address the
issues at hand; the second track appears to being going straight ahead
without the background and trying to resolve them.

I may be incorrect in my understanding, but I was not of an understanding
that Angie and I were to be drafting language to present to the SCI.

Please clarify.

Thank you.

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:23 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting


 All,

For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested:

- Roll call
- Statement of Interests
- Approval of the agenda
- Proxy voting
        explanation of the existing rules (staff)
        Discussion of reasons for problem with rules
        Discussion of possible remedies
        Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules
- Consent agenda
        draft available?
        discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's
notes)
- Deferral of motions
        draft available? (Ron/Angie)
- Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP

This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list
and think about a timeline re the various topics.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich