[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 30 August 2012

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,



The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take 
place on 13 September 2012 at 19:00 UTC.



Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 30 August 2012 at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120830-en.mp3 on page



Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on:

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug



Attendees

 Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary
Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group  - Primary
J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Constituency - Primary
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate

Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary

Apology:
Mary Wong - Non-Commercial Users Constituency - Primary
Jonathan Robinson - Registry Stakeholder Group  - Alternate
James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate
Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate

Staff:
Julie Hedlund
Marika Konings
Berry Cobb
Glen de Saint Géry

Please let me know if your name has been left off the list.

Let me know if you have any questions.



Thank you.

Kind regards,

Glen



GNSO Secretariat

gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>


AC Chat transcript 30 August 2012

Julie Hedlund: Hi Marika I just

Julie Hedlund: joined

Marika Konings: Hi Julie

Marika Konings: Analysis is up now.

avri: The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG.

J. Scott Evans: I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there 
was no formal process for considering the issue

Ron A: @ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling

Ron A: BC supports status quo

Ron A: Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle

Ron A: My point Avri!

J. Scott Evans: If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in 
our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair  has the 
discretion to deny.  That needs to be clearly ennunciated.

Ron A: What happens if the chair is biased for or against?

Ron A: bias by way of affiliation

J. Scott Evans: Good question Anne.

J. Scott Evans: I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny 
request because he had no process for doing so.  Hence, theis issue coming to 
the  SCIU

avri: Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and 
practice belongs to the chair.

J. Scott Evans: SCI

avri: PDP's not PDPD's

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in 
governance documents, I think.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Principle should not depend on which particular individual 
holds the position of Chair of the GNSO.  Authority to override a deferral 
should be clear if it is needed.

J. Scott Evans: If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly 
state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote.

Ray Fassett - RySG: agree with J Scott

J. Scott Evans: In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to 
be automatically granted

Ron A: @ J +1

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the 
basis for this opinion by SCI.

Ron A: 8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more 
than 8 days Avri

Ray Fassett - RySG: Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances 
that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as 
"neutral".

Ray Fassett - RySG: in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring 
that complaint, I believe

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that 
position in relation to complaints?

avri: i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do.

avri: coffying - codifying.

Ron A: @ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI

Ron A: SCI recommendations

avri: each chair gets to interpret on her own.

Ron A: Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle

avri: and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be 
removed or not re-elected.  Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council 
rules.

Ray Fassett - RySG: agree with ron and avri

Ron A: @ J - fully agree with your summation

avri: The working on this goes too far for me.  I do not think we should be 
offereing specific alternatives.

Ray Fassett - RySG: agree with j scott

Ron A: The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds
Anne Aikman-Scalese: J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral  practice itself is 
discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary?

J. Scott Evans: Anne:  Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice 
is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair.






 Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org