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

[Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey,

With all of the info that has been flowing to you on the list I trust that you 
now have a clearer understanding of the SCI. One thing is unclear to me 
however. You continue to refer ro the SCI as a rules committee,  which it is 
nothing of the sort. It has been mandated to review policy matters are referred 
ro it by Council,  or Council chartered Working Groups. I think of the SCI 
loosely as a sub-committee that brings its conclusions on issues that arise 
back to the Council, and in fact, to the Community, with a recommendation. The 
Council takes the recs under advisement and ultimately makes a determinarion. 
The SCI has looked at one issue that we were asked by Council Chair to review 
and recommended that no action be taken; rather a review in one year to see if 
the matter may have resolved itself.

The reason we are revising the SCI charter is to bring it current to the role 
it fulfills for Council.  The SCI has been meeting for three years and 
functioned well in its service to the Council and greater ICANN Community. Ours 
is not to determine the fate of the SCI; rather our efforts should be 
concentrated on updating the charter to reflect the work product the SCI 
generates. The GNSO Council will determine if there is merit to continuing the 
work of the SCI or not. That's how ICANN's bottom up process works. No single 
part can self-determine without Community scrutiny.

Your questions were helpful to bring the Committee's focus to the task at hand. 
Now we should shift our focus to revising the document we need to fulfill our 
work.

To that end, I would like to ask Julie to send around the most recently edited 
charter again to be sure that we all have the base document. I ask for members 
to please submit your mark ups to the list for Julie to capture. 

Thanks to you and the other Committee members for the robust discussion. It has 
certainly helped deeper conderation of what role the SCI plays in the ICANN 
solar system for all of us.

Kind regards,

RA




Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com 

-------- Original message --------
From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> 
Date: 06/09/2013  16:46  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision  what is our goal? 
 
Mickey,

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben brought from the Council to the SCI on 21 December 2012
(via email to the SCI list) the request to look at the issue of
resubmitting a motion as a result of discussions during the Council
meeting on 20 December.

Best regards,

Julie

On 6/7/13 8:10 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>uh oh.  this thread is splitting into separate ones.   so i'll just whack
>the whole thing and start with a blank slate.
>
>this is really helpful discussion.  i like Ray's historical perspective,
>Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there
>and Marika's recap of the task at hand.
>
>part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because
>while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP"
>topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a
>stretch from a scope standpoint.
>
>i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were
>asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea
>to push back on that one a bit.
>
>what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing
>that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of
>the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that
>remit and how things get submitted to us for review.  we also need make
>sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident.
>
>mikey
>
>
>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>