RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
Please see attached redline with proposed clarifications. I still did not get a chance to look at the ByLaws as to the last nine columns. Thank you, Anne 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. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:26 AM To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting 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 ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 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 Attachment:
GNSO Council Voting #470056RedlineAEAS - 5-17-12.doc
|