Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:16 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson > 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 ³no² 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 Council¹s 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. I¹m sure Council can use the 15 minutes. > Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today¹s call so that > should be cancelled as well. > > 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: 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 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> >>>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM >>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, >>>> Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>, >>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen >>>> de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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] >>>>> 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; 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 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 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 >>>>> To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, >>>>> Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>> <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>, >>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen >>>>> de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled >>>>>> meeting will further inspire us to do so.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also >>>>>> available as an editable Google Doc at >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5 >>>>>> fP3iQU/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> 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] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM >>>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> Knoben >>>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>>> Importance: High >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Anne, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call >>>>>> that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very >>>>>> busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I >>>>>> would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to >>>>>> provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful >>>>>> if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the >>>>>> letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to >>>>>> support it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Julie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM >>>>>> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund >>>>>> <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" >>>>>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair >>>>>> Jonathan Robinson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per >>>>>>> the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the >>>>>>> call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds >>>>>>> like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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; 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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
|
