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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP 
votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is 
procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy.

http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf

For example on initiation and council deliberation.

avri




On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:

> 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
>  
>  
>  
> 
>