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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anne,

 

I understand your concern, but it is clear that the Council supports our desire 
to have a new Charter, and Wolf-Ulrich (as V Chair of Council) notes that they 
do not wish to take on the work, but the GNSO Council is our chartering 
organization so I feel that it is their choice as to how we proceed.  I expect 
that we will know that direction following their meeting this week.  In any 
case, should the Council choose to do this work on their side, we have enough 
work to do in the meantime.

 

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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 14:19
To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Nuno Garcia'
Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair

 

Ron, the letter seems good except that it appears to me SCI can work on the 
Charter revisions, which are almost done as I understand it, without waiting 
for the GNSO to determine where it stands on the full consensus issue.  The 
last paragraph seems to imply that SCI will wait to do this work until after 
GNSO advises the appropriate level of consensus for SCI.  I personally do not 
see why we would wait on this. We can leave this section open in the revised 
Charter.  I would expect discussion beyond the upcoming Council meeting on the 
consensus issue and I am loathe to stop our Charter revision work when it is 
clear that GNSO wants SCI to continue and there is no dispute on this point.

 

Thank you,

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=32.221762,-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: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02 AM
To: 'Nuno Garcia'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair

 

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>  
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] 
<mailto:[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 
<mailto: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=32.221762,-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>  
[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/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

 <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.

 

 

  _____  

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.