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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

I just saw it. I believe the term 'council-level NCA' was already there in
the previous version, but personally I don't see any issues with changing
it to 'non-voting NCA' as it indeed aligns better with the Bylaws.

With best regards,

Marika

On 29/05/12 13:22, "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I'm not sure whether you've seen my comment on the wiki re the term
>"council-level NCA" vs. "non-voting NCA"
>
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Mai 2012 10:32
>An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
>
>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
>