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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

I think that it becomes a question for the g-council, becasue I think the 
language is rather clear.
Might as well get it resooolved before we have a SG/C request/issue to deal 
with.

I originally thought it was as Mary and Ron indicate,  but went back to the 
language to make sure.
That was when I discovered I was wrong.  
Or at least I think I discovered that I was wrong,
Though perhaps I am wrong in thinking I was wrong.

So at least one thing I know for, at some point on this discussion, I am wrong 
- either before or now.
Good thing I don't mind being wrong.

avri


Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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