[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

 

Welcome Nuno, and thank you for your comments on this thread.  

 

I, too, feel that providing more background to the Council would serve both
them and the SCI, and have thus drafted a revised letter to Jonathan, which
I have attached and pasted below for your review.  I have taken into account
both Anne and Jennifer’s comments and hopefully captured that which they,
and Wolf-Ulrich, are looking for.  Recognizing time is short, I welcome your
soonest comments/amendments.

 

Thank you in advance for your soonest response.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Subject: SCI Charter Revision

 

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 Sessions in Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful
to more formally seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next
steps for the SCI Charter.  One aspect, in particular, based on the
discussion in Durban, seems clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the
SCI to continue as a 'standing committee'. We would like the Charter to
reflect that, should that indeed be the case.

 

At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also 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 SCI’s August 6th
meeting and since then on our mailing list members expressed an interest in
helping guide the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel
there should or should not be full consensus.   

 

The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using “full or unanimous
consensus” or “rough or near consensus” came from my request, as in-coming
SCI Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki
since the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the
language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated.  I also noted at
the time, and do so here again for Council’s edification, the SCI Charter is
further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within
the SCI came in two forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to
unanimous consensus “improves our product” because it ensures that the
Committee dedicates the time to explore all points of view and works to find
stronger outcomes; the arguments 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, or that any member
choosing to remain steadfast in opposition could capture the SCI process.
All SCI members however respect that balanced discussions result in
consensus – in some form – leading to better appreciation of each member’s
contributions, more confidence in the Committee itself and in the process.  

 

The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on
procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the
Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent
defined in the Guidelines, ‘rough or near consent’ (defined as “a position
where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree”) immediately follows
‘full or unanimous consent’.  We are all aware of the ramifications of full
consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN’s inception.  ‘Near
consensus’, provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their
respective stakeholder group’s position, while it also provides for written
rationale entered into the public record for any and all dissenting
opinion(s), thus providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it
coming to its own determinations.  Notably, the SCI does not make any
determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council,
which, in turn, it discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems
appropriate. 

 

On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform
your discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the
Council on the Charter and consensus issues, if so requested.  

 

We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the
Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the
SCI Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its
determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this
task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate.

 

We await your guidance.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ron

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Nuno Garcia
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 06:03
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: WUKnoben; Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role

 

Hi all. I'm new do SCI, so I'm still catching up on things.

 

I also agree on the approach proposed by previous emails. 

 

I would also like to add something to the discussion: proposals submitted in
a full consensus framework are likely to be different from proposals
submitted in a WG model framework. This is, if the SCI chooses to change the
approval method to the WG model, we can expect different types of subjects
being presented.

 

Warm regards,

 

Nuno M. Garcia, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, UBI, Covilhã, Portugal

Invited Associate Professor, ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal

 

Av. da Anil, nº 2, 1º Esq.

6200-502 Covilhã
Portugal

 

mobile: +351 912 552 009 <tel:%2B351%20912%20552%20009> 
Skype: nunomgarcia
web .................:  http://www.di.ubi.pt/~ngarcia

research lab .....: http://allab.it.ubi.pt <http://allab.it.ubi.pt/> 

Cisco Academy : http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt
<http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt/> 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 28 August 2013 08:50, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

I agree with Wolf Ulrich and Jennifer regarding this.

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
<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lewis+and+Roca+Tucson&gl=us&hl=en&sll=32.2217
62,-110.949424&sspn=0.006295,0.055067&ie=UTF8&view=map&cid=11847041291150279
960&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>
[mailto: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
<mailto: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:  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>
<http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>   <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/1118312
627> 

 

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

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

Attachment: Ltr to Council Chair re SCI Charter vRA2.docx
Description: Microsoft Office