Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson

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

Anne and Ron,

yes, I’m not really convinced that we should send a letter to the council at 
this stage. We can’t expect substantial input. And therefore I think it may be 
more productive to put our (alternative) suggestions to the table.

Re Jeffs “documentation” nothing happened so far. I think he’s going to be 
triggered through the action list.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 



From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 7:20 PM
To: 'Ron Andruff' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan 
Robinson


Ron,

I thought Wolf-Ulrich was saying “do not send a letter to Council” and saying 
we should just keep working on our Charter and our own recommendations as to 
the full consensus issue.

This approach makes sense to me.  Wolf, is that what you were saying?

Anne

 


     Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
     
      Of Counsel
     
      Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
     
      One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
     
      Map to Parking Garage
     
      Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
     
      AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
     

 

      P 
     Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
     

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:57 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan 
Robinson

 

Thank you for this input, Wolf-Ulrich.

 

Two things:

 

1.    Can you advise as to when you think the open questions within Council and 
Jeff’s documentation will be reviewed and determinations made?

2.    Can you add your edits to the draft letter that I will submit to the GNSO 
Council Chair?  

 

At this point, I think it is important that everyone understands clearly who is 
expected to do which activity so that the SCI can deal with this matter 
appropriately.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

www.rnapartners.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 03:08
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan 
Robinson

 

All,

 

since I could not attend the last call I can’t see a reason to ask the council 
whether they intend to take on the charter revision or not – they definitely 
don’t like to do this work.

The council shall only discuss what’s going to be suggested by the SCI, maybe 
alternate charter proposals re full consensus.

 

There shall be – hopefully – an exchange on the council list following the 
Durban wrap-up. But it will take a little time since the action list has just 
been delivered and people are on holiday. The exchange could then been used as 
additional input for the SCI work.

 

So my suggestion is to continue our SCI chartering work (on the basis that the 
SCI shall continue as “standing”) and not pinging forward and backward with the 
voting question. 

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 

 

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne 

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:26 PM

To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 

Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan 
Robinson

 

I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown here:

 

At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising 
the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update 
it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to 
revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council.  In 
this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the 
“full consensus” process is beneficial for a group of this type.  The SCI would 
be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so 
requested.    However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would 
prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it 
could inform the SCI accordingly.  In either case it seems clear that it will 
be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible.  The SCI 
stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems 
appropriate.

 

Anne

 


     Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
     
      Of Counsel
     
      Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
     
      One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
     
      Map to Parking Garage
     
      Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
     
      AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
     

 

      P 
     Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
     

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson
Importance: High

 

Dear SCI members,

 

As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message 
to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek 
further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter.

 

Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft 
message.   No comments will be understood as agreement with the email’s 
contents.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director 

 

------------------ Begin Draft Message ---------------------------------------

Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its 
Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July.  At its meeting yesterday, the 
SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would 
be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the 
next steps for the SCI Charter.  In particular, based on the discussion in 
Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as 
a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role.

 

Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for 
decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making 
Decisions).  The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue 
further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their 
views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to 
provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to 
operate under full consensus.

 

At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising 
the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update 
it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to 
revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council.  In 
this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the 
“full consensus” process is beneficial for a group of this type.  The SCI would 
be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so 
requested.    However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would 
prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it 
could inform the SCI accordingly.  In either case it seems clear that it will 
be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible.  The SCI 
stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems 
appropriate.

 

We await your guidance.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.