Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hello Anne and everyone, On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for ³clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments². We make this suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been on the Council¹s action list: see, e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other online means, if approved. More broadly, I¹d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention in suggesting edits to Greg¹s version of the letter, specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the SCI¹s Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a ³consistent review plan² first be developed by the SCI. Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI¹s draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the GNSO¹s policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters on hold. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: 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 > Dear SCI members: > > Per Julie, > Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not > cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of > course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. > > Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one > modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a > modification of Greg¹s draft and has the following points: > > 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council > meeting as to ³friendly amendments² being on hold , but urges council to > consider assigning the ³Friendly amendments² project to SCI for commencement > of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this > topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on > February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to > refer it to SCI. > > 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri > strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether > the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a > later call since it is the subject of debate.) > > 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the ³Voting Thresholds² > issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its > January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is > likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller > discussion at the Council level. > > 4. Regarding SCI¹s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its > Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received > from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in > accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be > submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake > Report. > > > Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid > scheduling another call. > > 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 | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan > Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; 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 > > > Hi Anne, > > > > I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no > one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just > a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect > what you and the SCI members have agreed. > > > > Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let > you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for > times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if > necessary. > > > > Best regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM > To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, > Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: 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 > > >> >> Thanks Julie, >> >> I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language >> taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the >> distinction between ³immediate problems² referred by Council and ³periodic >> review of all procedures and guidelines². As a reminder, the bullet points >> below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: >> >> · On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been >> identified as presenting immediate problems >> >> · On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order >> to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear >> definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) >> >> >> Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a >> mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have >> Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as >> SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. >> >> In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore >> the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don¹t think that at >> this point the letter really says anything other than ³SCI is on hold and we >> want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.² I have to admit to >> being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the >> question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of >> GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture as in, >> ³we just don¹t have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for >> accountability.² >> >> I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February >> 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly >> amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. >> Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the >> subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected >> to this previously.) >> >> If so, I¹ll send another draft to the list. >> 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM >> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan >> Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; 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 >> >> >> Anne, >> >> >> >> The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether >> they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the >> day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have >> and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know >> already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we >> cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the >> Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM >> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> >, Greg >> Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> >> >, 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> >, >> Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx <mailto:lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx> >, >> "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 >> >> >>> >>> Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are >>> worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for >>> purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri¹s comments. I am >>> also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting >>> process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We >>> have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. >>> If they are available, we will have a better final product. >>> >>> My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: >>> >>> 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI >>> >>> 2. Discuss the nature of ³periodic review² in the work of SCI. >>> >>> 3. Review draft of letter as revised. >>> >>> 4. AOB >>> >>> 5. Adjourn >>> >>> >>> 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: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> ] >>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM >>> To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne >>> Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori >>> Schulman; 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> . It >>> is therefore a topic already on the Council¹s 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> - 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 SCI¹s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further >>> expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ³a broader >>> exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures²: see >>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 >>> <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. >>> >>> >>> >>> - 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 >>> Council¹s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review >>> rather than a ³periodic review² by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph >>> be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> >>> > >>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 >>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >, 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> >, >>> Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx <mailto:lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx> >, >>> "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 >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP >>>> 3iQU/edit?usp=sharing >>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5f >>>> P3iQU/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 <mailto:gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx >>>> <mailto: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 >>>> >>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>> (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> >>>> AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com >>>> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx >>>> <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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>>> <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 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> >>>>> AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com >>>>> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx <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 Tuesday¹s >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >>>>>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | >>>>>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >>>>>> (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>> <tel: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; 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 <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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 today¹s meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff >>>>>>> advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² 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 today¹s call. We will be >>>>>>> circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our >>>>>>> letter and request for time on the Council¹s 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 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 >>>>>>> <tel: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] 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 week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t 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 StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 >>>>>>> <tel: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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> Attachment:
image001.gif Attachment:
smime.p7s
|
