RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

 

Based upon Wolf-Ulrich’s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next 
Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on 
our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion.  The letter is 
noted below for your review.  It also includes (in blue text) Anne’s 
contribution.

 

Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to 
Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd.  

 

Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions 
on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013.  At its meeting on August 
6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Wrap-up Session 
in Durban 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.  We now understand that Jeff 
Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially 
required to operate under full consensus.

 

At the August 6th 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.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ron

 

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

 <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role

 

All.

 

the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as 
intended from the Durban meeting. The “historical” information to be provided 
by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding 
of where the SCI comes from.

If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 
04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some 
statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list.

 

To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method – WG 
model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons 
would be helpful.

The role itself – the SCI as an ongoing working institution – was not objected 
by the council.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich