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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

further: just the GNSO Council/PDP/WGetc Processes and the rules that govern 
those processes.


On 10 Jun 2013, at 10:27, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> Policy?  Certainly not substantive policy?
> 
> I thought it was questions about the process, aka rules.
> We have absolutely nothing to do with ICANN/GNSO Policy as far I know.  Just 
> the processes and the rules that govern those processes.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 Jun 2013, at 21:03, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 
>> 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.)
>>> 
>