AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last Call: Raising an Issue

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Angie. Others' opinion?


Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben


Deutsche Telekom AG
Service Headquarters
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Godesberger Allee 99, 53175 Bonn, Germany
+49 2244 873999 (Phone)
+49 2244 873955 (Fax)
+49 151 1452 5867 (Mobile)
E-Mail: knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx>
www.telekom.com<http://www.telekom.com/>

Life is for sharing.

Deutsche Telekom AG
Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman)
Board of Management: René Obermann (Chairman),
Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme,
Timotheus Höttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794
Registered office: Bonn
WEEE reg. no. DE50478376

Big changes start small - conserve resources by not printing every e-mail.



________________________________
Von: Angie Graves [mailto:angie12345@xxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. November 2012 08:12
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last Call: Raising an Issue

Option #1 is 'yes' for me

Angie Graves
SCI alternate



On Friday, November 2, 2012, wrote:
Thanks Julie.

All, please keep the deadline. No response is seen as supportive to option #1.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________
Von: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx');>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx');>]
 Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. November 2012 20:52
An: 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx');>
Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last Call: Raising an Issue

Dear SCI members,

On today's call it was agreed that there should be a "last call" for the review 
of the options on raising an issue.  Based on the discussion in Toronto and in 
today's meeting it appears that there is consensus around option number 1 - 
maintaining the status quo.  See the details below and on the wiki at: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg00390.html.

Please respond by **Friday, 09 November COB** as to whether you favor option 1 
or another option.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options

 *   To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 *   Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options
 *   From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
 *   Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:32:13 -0700

________________________________
Dear All,  In relation to the agenda item 'Raising an issue - Has this been 
sufficiently  clarified', three possible approaches were identified during the 
last meeting:   1.  Maintain status quo - which means only the GNSO Council or 
a group  chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by 
the SCI.  Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals, that 
if there  are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI, that they will 
need to  channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group chartered by the 
GNSO Council.  2.  Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct 
request to the  SCI - this would require a change to the SCI Charter and would 
need GNSO  Council approval.  3.  Add the possibility for any chartered group 
to make a direct request to  the SCI - this would require a change to the SCI 
Charter and would need GNSO  Council approval. Some also noted that a 
definition of 'chartered' would be  needed as it is not clear whether SO/ACs 
are chartered.  Members are encouraged to share their views on these three 
options and/or  identify any other options that should be considered to address 
thisissue  ahead of the next meeting.  With best regards,  Marika