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

[Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Anne,

I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan.

Thank you for your time on this.

Angie



On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>  Dear Anne,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions.  I agree with
> your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for
> direction.
>
>
>
> Lori
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel
> 1703 North Beauregard Street
>
> Alexandria, VA  22311-1714
>
> P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@xxxxxxxx
> [image: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:00 PM
> *To:* 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; 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
>
>
>
> To all SCI members and to Staff,
>
> To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI
> work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely.   I think
> this report should note the following:
>
> 1.      In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI
> considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day
> waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus
> Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the
> “periodic review” responsibility delineated in the Charter.
>
> 2.      We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was
> obtained and did not schedule another call at that time.  It was thought we
> could simply “tweak” the draft letter to Council that was presented prior
> to the January 20 call.  There was no disagreement expressed on the call
> about the basic points to be covered in the letter.
>
> 3.      It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the
> January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested
> topics – 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines.  Amr
> also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this
> issue.
>
> 4.      The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of
> objection listed in 3. and asked for further input.  Staff suggested
> further modifications which were sent to the list.  The Chair disagreed
> with staff’s modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no
> other SCI members weighed in.
>
> 5.      Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to
> another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was
> cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council.
>
> As Chair,  I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding
> the letter as expressed on the list down to two points:
>
>
>
> 1.      Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by
> any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the
> topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended  that a straw poll be
> conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that
> Council had put this issue on hold.  In my view, Avri should simply ask
> Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether
> SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but
> actually helping to reduce that workload.)
>
>
>
> 2.      Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to “periodic review”,
> the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant.  Staff apparently takes
> the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its “periodic
> review” work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The
> Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach.  The SCI Chair
> believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the
> results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on  a
> clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review
> responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO
> reviews the final recommendations.
>
>
>
> 3.      Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to
> be made in the course of the delivery of Avri’s report is as follows:
>
> (a)    under the “immediate review” responsibility in the Charter, should
> SCI study the “friendly amendments” issue that was put “on hold” by Council
> in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on
> this issue?
>
> (b)    Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and
> begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council
> for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review
> until further direction from Council?
>
> The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about
> the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests
> that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI
> should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a
> positive aspect of ICANN accountability.
>
>
>
> Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all.  Obviously if GNSO
> Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final
> recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until
> further direction is received from Council.  We will count on Avri to tell
> us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not.
>
> 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 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
> <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>  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 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.
>
>