ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:14:27 -0500

Hi,

From a liaison perspective:

 I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter.

I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make
them part of the report, with or without a letter and with or without
slides even (not sure when i will create slides  maybe the long flight
over).

If there is a letter I will speak to it.
If there isn't I will speak to the issues.

---

As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could
quibble with, but was also something I could accept.

Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against
the sending of letters if that is what we want to do.

avri



On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote:
> 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 “clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on
> friendly amendments”. 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 Council’s 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, I’d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our
> intention in suggesting edits to Greg’s version of the letter,
> specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review,
> was not to derogate from the SCI’s 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
> “consistent review plan” 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
> SCI’s draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the
> manager of the GNSO’s 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
> <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25
> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: 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
>
>     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 Greg’s draft and has the following
>     points:
>
>      
>
>     1.       This version lists the current status after the January
>     15 council meeting as to “friendly amendments” being on hold , but
>     urges council to consider assigning the “Friendly amendments”
>     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 “Voting
>     Thresholds” 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 SCI’s 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
>
>      
>
>     *cid:image001.gif@01D03975.5FB8FC60*
>
>       
>
>     *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 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
>     <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 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
>     <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>     *Date: *Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM
>     *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, Greg Shatan
>     <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>>
>     *Cc: *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
>
>      
>
>         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 “immediate
>         problems” referred by Council and “periodic review of all
>         procedures and guidelines”.  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 don’t think that at this point the letter really
>         says anything other than “SCI is on hold and we want you to
>         let us know as soon as we can start work.”  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, “we just don’t
>         have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for
>         accountability.”
>
>          
>
>         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, I’ll send another draft to the list.
>
>         Anne
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         *cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0*
>
>               
>
>         *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
>         <mailto: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 Avri’s 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 “periodic review” in the
>             work of SCI.
>
>             3.      Review draft of letter as revised.
>
>             4.      AOB
>
>             5.      Adjourn
>
>              
>
>             Thank you,
>
>             Anne
>
>              
>
>             *cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0*
>
>               
>
>             *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]
>             *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.
>             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.
>
>              
>
>             - 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.
>
>              
>
>             - 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. 
>
>              
>
>             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-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/* <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
>
>                  
>
>                 *cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0*
>
>                       
>
>                 *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
>
>                      
>
>                     *cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0*
>
>                       
>
>                     *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]
>                     *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* <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
>                         <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* <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>
>                             [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 <tel: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.
>
>                  
>
>                 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>                 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.
>



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy