Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair re SCI Charter

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don’t think resubmitting a motion is outside the scope of the present charter 
because submission and handling of motions used to be part of the improvements 
process (council operating rules).
In addition the two bullet points – at least from my point of view – do not 
limit the SCI existence because of the periodic iteration.

Nevertheless the general question should be discussed. I wonder whether we 
could achieve in Durban a general “go ahead thinking of a broader SCI scope” by 
the council and after a while coming back to the council with concrete 
suggestions. I doubt that we can expect more guidance.

See my comments below

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 



From: Julie Hedlund 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:15 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Note to GNSO Council Chair 
re SCI Charter

Dear SCI members,

As discussed in our meeting yesterday, below for your review is a draft message 
alerting Jonathan that the SCI would like to discuss the issues concerning the 
SCI Charter with the Council during the working session in Durban.



Please send any comments by Friday, 05 July.



Best regards,



Julie



Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



----------------------------- Draft Message to Jonathan ------------------------



Dear Jonathan,



As you know, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) will 
provide an update on its work to the GNSO Council in Durban on 13 July.  One of 
issues the SCI is considering is an update of its Charter, as we have reported 
previously.  This began as an effort to update the Charter to include 
procedures to elect the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, but recently the SCI also has 
considered whether other updates are necessary.  After discussing possible 
updates the SCI members realized that they need guidance from the GNSO Council 
as to whether the SCI's work should be limited to a review of the procedures 
developed in the GNSO Implementations process, or whether the GNSO Council 
intends for the SCI to address other procedural issues not related to the 
improvements process. WUK: One such example might be the re-submission of a 
motion, which is an issue the Council asked the SCI to address and for which 
the SCI currently is considering revised procedures.



The current Charter states:

"The GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) will be 
responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of 
recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy 
Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team 
(PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council:

  a.. On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present 
immediate problems 
  b.. On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify 
possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI 
on which recommendations should be reviewed)"



The SCI seeks guidance from the Council on what is its intent with respect to 
the duration of the SCI work. WUK: Should the SCI cease to exist when it has 
completed the second bullet above from the Charter? Or Should the SCI continue 
indefinitely to consider procedural questions as raised WUK: the by the GNSO 
Council or a group Chartered by the Council? 



It seems that these fundamental questions need to be addressed before the SCI 
can consider revisions to the Charter.  The SCI members look forward to 
discussing these questions with the Council in Durban.



Best regards,



Ron



Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI