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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Regarding the language on point #2, I don’t think this is at all accurate. 
Currently, it says:

“Last year, acting on an SCI recommendation, the Council amended the Operating 
Procedures to allow for waivers of the 10-day motion submission deadline under 
certain circumstances.  The question whether the new 10-day waiver rule applies 
to resubmitted motions was not directly considered by SCI and we recommend that 
this be reviewed and clarified.”

I would like to revisit this issue, and believe that the 10-day rule waiver 
should apply to resubmitted motions, but to say that this was not considered by 
the SCI is simply not true. It was considered and discussed over months on both 
teleconference and on-list discussions. If I recall correctly, we even had 
suggested language circulated to the SCI list as far back as March 2014 to 
address this that the SCI did directly consider, then opted not to adopt in its 
recommendation to the council months later.

I do wish we got this the first time around, but would prefer to explain why we 
didn’t previously adopt it, and simply recommend that we pick it up again some 
time this year.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 23, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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. 
> 
> <SCI-LettertoRobinson26JAN2015.docx>