Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal?
To add my two cents to this, the SCI was indeed created as a 'Standing Committee' to address any issues resulting from the implementation of the recommendations related to the GNSO review as well as to be responsible for a periodic review of those adopted recommendations. The focus to date has mainly been on issues that occurred as a result of the implementation revised Operating Procedures, including the WG Guidelines and PDP Manual, as most felt that the discussions on periodic reviews should start once most of these recommendations would have been operation for at least a certain amount of time in order to obtain useful data / information to identify the success and/or shortcomings. As for any WG / Committee / DT, any recommendations need to be submitted to the GNSO Council for approval. In the case of changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, these are subject to a public comment period of at least 21 days prior to consideration by the GNSO Council. With best regards, Marika On 07/06/13 15:54, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >My own view is that if GNSO did not see SCI as a resource for new issues, >they never would have asked us to address: > >1. suspension of a PDP (already done at GNSO request) or >2. resubmission of a motion (working on this now at GNSO request) > >So in general my feeling is we are responding to current requests >forwarded on motion from the GNSO and that the Charter should likely >reflect the work they expect from us (while pointing out this is >different from the original Charter). This is why I thought we should be >careful to look at the work list before us that Julie recently provided. > >It is not clear to me that GNSO intends SCI to take requests directly >from GNSO chartered Working Groups on a ongoing basis, but based on their >current practice, it appears GNSO wants to be able to make requests of >SCI from time to time. I guess my assumption about this has been that >the word "Standing" in the description of the Committee makes them think >of SCI as an available resource to the Council. > >Anne > > >Anne E. Aikman-Scalese >Of Counsel >Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 >One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 >AAikman@xxxxxxxxx www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman >P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or >copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication >was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the >original message. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor >Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:30 PM >To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? > >ah! a puzzle! i love those. > >i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. > but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the >rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a >subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the >GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so >doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? > >in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that >needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions >of the charter. > >one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, >deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody >could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the >process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to >develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the >Council after we're done. > >another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing >rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the >Council to evaluate our idea. > >is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another >journey into dreamland? > >mikey > > >On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for >> quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened >> because there was not a mechanism to review and update these >> procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO >> formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO >> improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by >> creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We >> would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but >> obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the >> project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history >> not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and >> updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, >>producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living >>document. >> Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a >> mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as >> needed basis through the course of time. >> >> Ray >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike >> O'Connor >> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM >> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our >>goal? >> >> thanks Avri and Julie, >> >> your posts are really helpful. >> >> what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original >> intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work >> of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for >> the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, >> and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn >> through the draft with this in mind. >> >> one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" >> language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be >> that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is >> because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms >>> that >> need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >>> >>> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might >>> have >> wanted to go beyond clean-up. >>> >>> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, >>> but >> it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >>> >>> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I >>> do not >> agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic >> process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of >> SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working >>groups. >>> >>> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just >> because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list >> right now. >>>> >>>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change >>>> in the >> Charter? >>>> >>>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>>> >>>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >> accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order >>>> to >> accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>>> >>>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer >>>> rather >> than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> mikey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> >> > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > > >---------------------- >For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to >www.lewisandroca.com. > >Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 >Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 >Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 > > This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity >to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the >intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering >the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly >prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please >notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return >E-Mail or by telephone. > In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you >that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not >intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer >for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|