RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal?

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

That makes sense.  What does the Charter revision say about this?  I think it 
says Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines.  Are the WG Guidelines 
part of the Operating Procedures?  I'm pretty sure the PDP Manual is a part of 
the Operating Procedures.
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 Ray Fassett
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 3:41 PM
To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?


Well remember the SCI can only make recommendations to the Council with regards 
to changes to its operating procedures.  Or is this no longer true?
To my knowledge, the Council has to approve any changes to its own operating 
procedures no different than when they had to formally approve/adopt the new 
operating procedures they are working under now.  Does this help?

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 5:30 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