Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

>  In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could
> indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, 

As NCSG Primary, I do not support as is.

> or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.

For the reasons stated.

Dropping #3 would be a necessary for me - this is not time to go messing
with vote thresholds.
Dropping #2 would be a nice to have but I would abstain.  I understand
the urge to go back and fix a suspected bug that got away.

avri

On 22-Jan-15 16:52, Julie Hedlund wrote:
> Hi Anne,
>
> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call
> that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very
> busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore.  I
> would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to
> provide their thoughts on the list.  In particular, it would be
> helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she
> supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would
> enable them to support it.
>
> Best regards,
> Julie
>
> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM
> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>, 'Thomas
> Rickert' <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>,
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>>, Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>,
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>"
> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>, Glen de Saint Géry
> <Glen@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair
> Jonathan Robinson
>
>     Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss?
>      As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points
>     during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to
>     discuss.  Sounds like we need to do that.  Will staff please
>     proceed accordingly?
>
>     Thank you,
>
>     Anne
>
>      
>
>     **
>
>       
>
>     *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
>     *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
>     *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
>     *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
>
>     *_AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>_**|
>     www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>      
>
>     **
>
>
>       
>
>     * *
>
>      
>
>     *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
>     *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM
>     *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
>     *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund;
>     gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>; Glen de Saint Géry
>     *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council
>     Chair Jonathan Robinson
>
>      
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
>
>     Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being
>     included?  I know we have not done one on the list and was
>     wondering if one had been taken during the call.
>
>     A council liaison I would like to know that for my report.  I will
>     of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
>
>     As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have
>     participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I
>     might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on
>     #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus
>     levels while the GNSO review was ongoing.  I also do not see the
>     point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. 
>     So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment,
>     I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and
>     has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to
>     include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason
>     to withhold our recommendation.  But since we went ahead, I do not
>     understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
>
>     I can not support the letter as it stands.
>
>     thanks
>
>     avri
>
>
>
>     I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time
>     as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
>
>     On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
>         Dear all,
>
>         Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based
>         on Tuesday’s SCI conference call.  If you have any comments,
>         please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday,
>          January 26. 
>
>          
>
>         *Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting
>         15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore
>         for you to present this letter to Council.  (I am unable to
>         attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
>
>          
>
>         Thank you,
>
>         Anne
>
>          
>
>         
> *mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif*
>
>               
>
>         *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
>         *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
>         *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
>         *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
>
>         *_AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>_ |
>         www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>          
>
>
>               
>
>         * *
>
>          
>
>         *From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM
>         *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
>         *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund;
>         gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>         <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>; Glen de Saint Géry
>         *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional
>         2015 Recordings & Transcripts
>
>          
>
>         Same here. Sorry!
>
>          
>
>         Best
>
>         Thomas
>
>          
>
>             Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben
>             <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx
>             <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>:
>
>              
>
>             Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after
>             the Frankfurt meeting.
>
>
>             Best regards
>
>             Wolf-Ulrich
>
>              
>
>             *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
>
>             *To:* 'Lori Schulman'
>             <mailto:lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx> ; Julie Hedlund
>             <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>             <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>             *Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>             *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional
>             2015 Recordings & Transcripts
>
>              
>
>             Many thanks Lori.  We will revise the draft letter to GNSO
>             Council in accordance with comments received during
>             today’s meeting.
>
>              
>
>             Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council
>             liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters
>             were put “on hold” last week by Council.  (Thanks Mary for
>             this info.)  Staff also advised that it is part of the
>             function of Council liaison to provide SCI with
>             information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. 
>
>              
>
>             Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not
>             available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such,
>             may not be timely.  
>
>              
>
>             Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call.  We will
>             be circulating the redraft of the letter soon.  We want to
>             be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s
>             work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely
>             fashion and preferably well before February 1.
>
>             Anne
>
>              
>
>             *<image002.gif>*
>
>               
>
>             *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
>             *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
>             *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona
>             85701-1611*
>
>             *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
>
>             *_AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
>             <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>_ | www.LRRLaw.com
>             <http://www.lrrlaw.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 *Lori Schulman
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM
>             *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>             <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>             *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional
>             2015 Recordings & Transcripts
>
>              
>
>             Dear All,
>
>              
>
>             Below is the link for last week’s intersessional.   I
>             didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
>
>              
>
>             Lori
>
>              
>
>             *Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel
>             1703 North Beauregard Street
>
>             Alexandria, VA  22311-1714
>
>             P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@xxxxxxxx
>             <mailto:Lori.Schulman@xxxxxxxx>
>             <image003.jpg>
>
>              
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole 
> use of
>
>              
>
>             the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain 
> information that is
>
>              
>
>             confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended 
> recipient or
>
>              
>
>             have received this message in error, you are not authorized to 
> copy,
>
>             distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. 
> Please notify the
>
>             sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this 
> message and any
>
>              
>
>             attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or 
> virus free.
>
>              
>
>             
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>             This message and any attachments are intended only for the
>             use of the individual or entity to which they are
>             addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment
>             is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
>             responsible for delivering the message or attachment to
>             the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
>             dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or
>             any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
>             received this communication in error, please notify us
>             immediately by replying to the sender. The information
>             transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
>             privileged, is intended only for the personal and
>             confidential use of the intended recipients, and is
>             covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
>             U.S.C. §2510-2521. 
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>         This message and any attachments are intended only for the use
>         of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If
>         the reader of this message or an attachment is not the
>         intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
>         delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient
>         you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
>         or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly
>         prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
>         please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The
>         information transmitted in this message and any attachments
>         may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
>         confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by
>         the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
>      
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of
>     the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the
>     reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended
>     recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
>     message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby
>     notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>     message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
>     received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
>     by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this
>     message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only
>     for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients,
>     and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
>     U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>