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

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Wolf Ulrich and Jennifer regarding this.
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01CEA388.8777FAF0]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700

One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

Map to Parking 
Garage<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lewis+and+Roca+Tucson&gl=us&hl=en&sll=32.221762,-110.949424&sspn=0.006295,0.055067&ie=UTF8&view=map&cid=11847041291150279960&hq=lewis+and+roca+tucson&hnear=&ll=32.221951,-110.971892&spn=0.013524,0.019205&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A>

Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725

AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> • 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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 WUKnoben
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:45 AM
To: Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role

I’d support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council members’ 
understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council discussion.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Jen Wolfe<mailto:jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM
To: Ron Andruff<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
'WUKnoben'<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role

Hi everyone,

I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am looking 
forward to our call next week.  I agree it is appropriate to send a letter to 
Jonathan regarding the SCI’s position in order to best frame the discussion 
during the GNSO call.

My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt 
there should or shouldn’t be full consensus to help guide the discussion for 
the Council.  For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus was that 
it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points of view and 
work to find stronger outcomes.  The SCI has the luxury of not working under 
any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather than substantive 
issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the group more time to 
really find a better outcome.  On the flip side, I believe the argument against 
full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that 
would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not,  by 
pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need.

This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned that 
if we don’t provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon our 
meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent discussing 
this issue.

I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI.

With kindest regards,

Jennifer

jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual 
property law firm
IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012
Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: 
cid:image001.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>  
[Description: Description: Description: Description: 
cid:image002.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>  
[Description: Description: Description: Description: 
cid:image003.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <https://twitter.com/jenwolfe>
Follow My Blog<http://www.jenwolfe.com/blog>
Domain Names 
Rewired<http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312627>

From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM
To: 'WUKnoben'; 
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role

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

From: 
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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



________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.