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

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,
The letter was proposed so that in fact SCI could reach consensus with regard 
to what SCI is communicating to Council.  I think Greg in particular was quite 
frustrated by what was communicated regarding the 10 day waiver issue last year 
and felt that there was actually no consensus within SCI as to the effect on 
resubmission of a motion.    This resulted in a "no" vote from IPC and that is 
certainly not desirable from my point of view going forward.  Like you, I am a 
huge fan of the consensus process used within SCI.

Thus I think that it would be important for SCI members to be comfortable with 
the content of the report you plan to give.  The fact that we have not been 
able to agree on the content of a letter tells me that there are still 
differences of opinion which have not been resolved.  In fact, there is no real 
difference between a letter and a report - SCI should have consensus or we 
would end up having you report that we do not have consensus and that may 
simply be a waste of Council's time.

One other option is simply to cancel the letter and the report and skip the 
opportunity to address Council in Singapore as to SCI issues since we do not in 
fact have a consensus regarding our work plan for 2015.  That would be my 
recommendation at this point.  I'm sure Council can use the 15 minutes.
Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today's call so that 
should be cancelled as well.

Thank you,
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01D03A0F.98C82B80]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |

One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725

AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | 
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>








From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:14 AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan 
Robinson

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<mailto: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.


________________________________

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.