RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for this, J. Scott.  I support your way forward.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:05 PM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI

 

Dear All:

 

My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our
rationale for the decision to the GNSO.  Here is some proposed text:

 

The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice
whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date.  The
SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a
procedure to formalize this informal practice.  After much debate, the SCI
concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions
was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO
Council.  For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to
create a formal procedure at this time.  However, the SCI felt that it was
necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must
always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative.  Given that the
current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can
exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any
request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to
handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal
practice. . . . 

 

We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO
Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a
perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner.  I just didn't
have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in
time for everyone to consider before the next call.

 

J. Scott

 

j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. -
408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx

 

  _____  

From: "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx 
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI

 

Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.

 

 

Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

 


  _____  


Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: Re: SCI

Hi Wolf,

 

Please see the transcript below.

 

With best regards,

 

Marika

 

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.

  J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that
disrection must be exercised in all cases.

  Ron A:Good bye all

  J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say

  Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf

  Wolf Knoben:Thanks all

 



From: "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: SCI

 

Hi Marika,

 

Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting?

 

Thanks and

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben