Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New SCI Task
Dear SCI members, Attached is a background paper on the issue described below. This also is posted to the wiki on the page for the 17 December meeting at the top of the list of items for review at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/17+December+2013. This issue is on the agenda for the 17 December meeting and staff will provide a brief update on it. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:22 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New SCI Task Dear SCI members, I should have mentioned at yesterday's meeting that the GNSO Council assigned a new task to the SCI at its meeting in Buenos Aires. It was passed as part of the consent agenda at the Council meeting on 20 November. Here is the text: "'The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) to review the current consensus levels defined and described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, and specifically requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend revised or additional language to apply to situations where working groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be described as No Consensus/Divergence')" You can see it on the consent agenda at: http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/agenda-gnso-coun cil-20nov13-en. The transcript is available at: http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/agenda-gnso-coun cil-20nov13-en and the discussion is on page 4. I've also extracted it below. Staff will provide a background paper on this issue following the format in the SCI Charter, as we did with the two recently added SCI tasks (email voting and waivers). Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Excerpt from the Transcript: Jonathan Robinson: "Item 3, we move on this to the consent agenda. And here we have an item that came out of -- has been removed and came out of the second motion on our agenda today. And this derives from the work of the working group on IGO, INGO names where there was some discussion about the adequacy of the consensus levels within the working group and a requirement to refer these -- or a request to refer these to the standing committee -- the GNSO Council standing committee on improvements implementation. We have discussed this both during the course of our weekend sessions and in the interim. And it seemed that there was no opposition to this referral. And, therefore, it has ended up on the consent agenda. So can I just check that there are no objections to this item being on the consent agenda? Any comment? Any input? Seeing none, we will move on. And that is -- and we will proceed, then, to act according to that recommendation and refer this item to the standing committee on improvements implementation." Attachment:
Background on GNSO Working Group Guidelines Consensus Levels.docx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|