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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

your interpretation seems to be as written. I wonder whether there was a 
specific idea behind. Is this what we wanted when we drafted the charter: 
excluding the SGs/Cs from "requesting an issue" directly?
I'm just raising questions. As there is not yet any controversial case there 
may be no urgency to solve one.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 17:19
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Hi,

Just checking my interpretation of:

<<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.>>

This means that issues can be brought by:

- the g-council itself
- a Working Group
- a drafting team
- a CWG chartered by the g-council
- any sort of group/team that the g-council has chartered

It does not include SG/C, as they are chartered by the Board and not the 
g-council.  If a SG/C wants to bring an item to the SCI, they must take it to 
the g-council first.

If so, then what we are asking ALAC to do is not different than what we would 
ask any SG/C to do.

But if the JAS or any of the other CWG's were to bring the issue, that would be 
ok.

Do I interpret this as others would?

avri