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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

I'm in agreement with Mary on this one.  As noted in my previous email
regarding the slides that W-U has prepared, the SCI has been established to
smooth out those circumstances where the recommended policy/process needs
some further refinement to be effective in practice.  Therefore it should
not matter from which part of the community the request comes - other than
from individuals - for the SCI to review an implementation process, in my
view.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:48 AM
To: AAikman@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Actually, my recollection/impression was that when the SCI charter was
drafted the phrase was intended to refer to SGs and Cs as well. Can staff or
someone with a better memory than I recall one way or the other?

Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
typographical errors.

"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working group
or other team with an adopted GNSO charter.  It does not appear to me on the
surface that this phrase refers to a constituency.  I doubt SCI wants to
become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather than
from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO which
are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or stakeholder
group.
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: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM
To: avri@xxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council
would be what is covered by the rules.


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 16:33
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda


Hi,

Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have
not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its
liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the
g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore
it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues
report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc.

One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of
ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue.

But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our
charter.

avri


Krista Papac <Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and 
>take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO 
>Council.
>
>Krista Papac
>General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>Email:
>krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Web: www.ausregistry.com
>
>From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM
>To: AAikman@xxxxxxxxx; marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx
>Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
>
>The charter reads:
><<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.>>
>
>Request from individuals is not included.
>
>
>
>Best regards
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>________________________________
>Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20
>An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>;
>avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>
>Cc:
>gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>Betreff: 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:image001.gif@01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]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 the 
>original message.
>
>
>________________________________
>From:
>owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s
>c@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.




----------------------
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