Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI - Proposed Agenda

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Some notes from the meeting. Please add/correct etc.

avri



On 10 Jul 2012, at 15:55, Marika Konings wrote:

> 
> Proposed Agenda – SCI Meeting – 12 July 2012
> 
> 1. Roll call
> 2. Statement of Interests
> 3. Approval of the agenda
> 4. Status update on community review
>   -  consent agenda & the GNSO Council Voting Results

Julie took us through the open review.  As there are no comments yet, we moved 
on to the next item

> 5. Continuing discussion (and suggested solutions) on
>       - Proxy Voting Procedure
>         Proposed: no change to procedure, request new method for
>                             notification of both Secretariat and Council

Seems to be general agreement to talking to staff about making the process less 
labor intensive for the secretariat and to allow for notification up to the 
beginning of the meeting.  There does not seem to be any agreement for changing 
the rules at this time.


>       - Deferral of Motions
>         Update on team work

There was a discussion of the work in the wiki pages.  As a possible solution 
might involve crafting some definitions to mark the difference between a delay 
or change to the chartered timeline and an indefinite delay or suspension,  
Margie offered that she and Marika will look into suggesting some language.

>       - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP
>         Update on Team Work

We need to first resolve the  question: do we want to leave it as a process and 
monitor for a year or to formalize a rule?  A question that was asked during 
the meeting was if we decide to leave it as a process and monitor for the next 
year, what would we be monitoring, and what would mark significant data.  After 
this discussion, and if the group decides to formalize, we need to have further 
discussions on how to do so - there are lots of variations currently proposed.

Those who support leaving it as and monitoring are asked to add information of 
what would be monitored and the significance of that monitoring.

> 6. Raising an issue -
>      Has this been sufficiently clarified - currently needs to come from
>      g-council or from a WG

It became apparent that the issue had not been sufficiently clarified.  While 
we seem to agree on the interpretation of our charter that issues get to the 
SCI in the following way:

1. the g-council sent the issue
2. a WG brought the issue
3. an issue came up during a periodic review by the SCI of a process.

What remains a question, however:

- Was this intent of the council in creating the charter
- Does it make sense that WG can come directly to SCI when SGs & Cs can't.  
- What does it mean if the g-council objects to review of an item one SG/C 
thinks is a problem
- Does it make sense that as manager of the policy process, the g-council does 
not have to approve both SG/C issues and WG issues before they are discussed in 
SCI

Mary, with the assistance of J. Scott will create a draft letter to the 
g-council with these and perhaps other questions to be reviewed at the next 
meting.

> 7. Status update on Working Group survey

SCI members to review before the next meeting.


> 8. AOB