RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wolf-Ulrich, 

 

Thanks for this revision, but it doesn't resolve the matter as I had hoped.
As I noted in my previous email:

 

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public
comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a
Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any
rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.
Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply
an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that
drives ICANN.

 

For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states:

 

Further steps:

.          How to deal with the consensus items?

- Back to council?

- Council post it for Public Comment?

.          How to deal with items raised by individuals?

 

I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community
for public comment.  The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the
number of topics that need consideration and public comments - to add yet
more to that pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do,
IMHO.

 

For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open
a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point.

 

I see our guiding principal as, "What makes ICANN function more
efficiently?"  Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back -
yet again - to the community for public comment is the opposite of that.

 

My two cents.

 

RA 

 

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

 

Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording.
>From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to
public comment. 

The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the
council for public comment.

 

Is the following version agreed?

 

 

 Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

 


  _____  


Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view,
Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception.  The second to last slide creates an issue
that could, and should be avoided at this time.

 

The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public
comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a
Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any
rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues.
Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply
an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that
drives ICANN.

 

Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the
matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my
view.  For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the
presentation.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

 

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report

All,

 

attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel
free to comment/amend.

I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.

 

Best regards

Wolf-