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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika for the details.
I think we could discuss the procedural question in our meeting on Sunday, and 
I'll inform the council about.



Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 10:53
An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri@xxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: 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:731370109@20062012-20AC]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.