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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Some comments in-line below:

On Jan 24, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what 
> we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to 
> three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
> 
> - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the 
> potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold 
> following its last meeting on 15 January; see 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is 
> therefore a topic already on the Council’s radar as a possible topic for 
> referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than 
> recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it 
> (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up 
> consideration of the issue again.

Yup. That sounds right. However, if there is a desire to ask the GNSO council 
to green-light the SCI starting work on this, I don’t mind.

> - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the 
> October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI 
> recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to 
> consider the SCI’s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further 
> expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of “a broader 
> exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures”: see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 – an exercise which the 
> current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). 
> 
> - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the 
> SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or 
> without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review – at a minimum, we assume this 
> means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would 
> not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations 
> from the GNSO Review are clearer.

That was my understanding as well. I don’t see why we should be bringing this 
up at the time being, considering we previously agreed to postpone picking this 
up until after the full GNSO review is concluded. I thought that that was where 
we left things on this point during last week’s call as well.

> - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore 
> respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO 
> Council’s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather 
> than a “periodic review” by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be 
> reworked if these suggestions are adopted.

+1

Thanks.

Amr

> 
> We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to 
> provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not 
> part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so 
> that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft 
> letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for 
> the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work 
> week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04
> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, 
> Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 
> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen de 
> Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair 
> Jonathan Robinson
> 
>> We may yet be able to resolve this on the list.  (Perhaps a scheduled 
>> meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
>> 
>> In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also 
>> available as an editable Google Doc at 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing
>> 
>> In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as 
>> "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of 
>> where in the year any of these items should be handled  I've added language 
>> to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review.  
>> On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the 
>> language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the 
>> language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual 
>> Operating Procedures).
>> 
>> If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out 
>> and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
>> 
>> I look forward to your responses.
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> Gregory S. Shatan 
>> Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
>> 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
>> Direct  212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
>> Fax  212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
>> gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx 
>> www.lawabel.com
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>>> Julie,
>>> Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no 
>>> one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done.  As 
>>> far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that 
>>> addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the 
>>> deadline. 
>>>  
>>> PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED.  I 
>>> would appreciate your doing this today.
>>>  
>>> Thank you,
>>> Anne
>>>  
>>> <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 | www.LRRLaw.com
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM
>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair 
>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>> Importance: High
>>>  
>>> 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>
>>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM
>>> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund 
>>> <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" 
>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen de Saint Géry <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
>>>>  
>>>> <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 | 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; 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
>>>>>  
>>>>> <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 | 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; 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>:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt 
>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
>>>>>> To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'
>>>>>> 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 | www.LRRLaw.com
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> <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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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. 
>> 
> <image001.gif>