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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Apologies, yes, you are right, this is from the GNSO WG Guidelines and applies 
to GNSO WG Chairs. I checked the GNSO Operating Procedures but could not find 
anything similar that applies to  the GNSO Council Chair.

Best regards,

Marika

From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 13:39
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Avri Doria 
<avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI

Is this provision applicable to the GNSO Chair?

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


________________________________
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>; 
"KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>; 
"avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>" <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>; 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI

Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically 
underlined sentence):

'3.7 Appeal Process Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are 
being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the 
WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event 
that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request 
an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering 
Organization or their designated representative.

In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not 
performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this 
document, the same appeals process may be invoked'.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Avri Doria 
<avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI

We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a 
complaint about the Chair's performance.  Are there any such provisions?

J. Scott

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


________________________________
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>; 
"avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>" <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>; 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI

You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations 
of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 
'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a 
specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in 
identifying areas of agreement'.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI

Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri?

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. To be 
excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is 
governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally 
defined and no longer a chair courtesy.

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. . . .


In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos 
for a neutral chair position?

Thanks and best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44
An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI


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 
> situat!
ion 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<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> From: "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> To: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>