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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

I certainly recall in the GCOT WG the discussion of Chair and Vice Chair
accountability particularly to neutrality.  But I have to agree, I do not
see such language referenced in the Operating Procedures.  I do see this
under 4.5.1:  Specific Councilor obligations include…periodically reviewing
the performance of the Chair and Vice-Chairs.

 

Which is not of much assistance if there is nothing even generally that
speaks to what the performance of the Chair and Vice-Chair is expected to
be.  Avri and Ron, how did you let this happen? J

 

Ray

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:48 AM
To: J. Scott Evans; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx;
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI

 

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

 

  _____  

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

 

  _____  

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; "avri@xxxxxxx"
<avri@xxxxxxx>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx"
<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" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx"
<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] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria

Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44

An: 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

> 

> 

> 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

>  

>  

>  

> 

>