Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
The SCI Charter notes that 'For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. As such, it currently does not foresee requests from individuals. A way around it could be to inform the GNSO Council when a request from an individual has been received and ask whether there are any objections from the GNSO Council for the SCI to consider the specific issue, but this may be something the SCI wants to discuss with the GNSO Council to make sure that they are comfortable with this procedure. With regard to the issue raised by Evan, it related to the SOI. He noted that 'question in #9 is so broad and vague as to allow for people to avoid listing conflicts that are extremely relevant to ICANN transparency and accountability. It should be split into three discrete parts: 9) Do you own, hold stock in, work for, participate in an advisory capacity, or contract to a) Any ICANN contracted parties? b) Any organization providing professional services to any ICANN contracted parties? c) Any organization presently applying to be an ICANN contracted party?' Of course, the SCI could also elect to keep this recommendation on file to be further considered in conjunction with a general review of the SOI and/or GNSO Operating Procedures. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>> To: "'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>'" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne [cid:896032016@19062012-2684]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<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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 theoriginal message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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:
image001.gif
|
