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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anne, thank you very much for your proposed edits. From a staff
perspective, we see no issues with the edits proposed and agree that these
would clarify the document. We would only suggest to change "2/3 vote of
the council is equal to consensus" to "where a 2/3 vote of the council
demonstrates the presence of a consensus" so it tracks the language in the
ICANN Bylaws.

With best regards,

Marika

On 17/05/12 21:00, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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