<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
- To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Julie Hedlund'" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "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 17:26:08 -0500
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
Excuse me, why do you assume that you can write a letter, have a
single call and call that consensus? <br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27-Jan-15 14:59, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:3291ED54A36D36449ED57ED8CA77CFD9015B6BD90D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>To all SCI members and to Staff,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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:</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>1.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>2.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>3.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>4.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>5.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>As Chair, I would boil the
outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as
expressed on the list down to two points:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>1.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>2.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>3.<span>
</span></span></span><span>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:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>(a)<span>
</span></span></span><span>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?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">
<span><span>(b)<span>
</span></span></span><span>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?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span>Anne</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td rowspan="7" width="67">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span><img
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part1.07010206.07080006@acm.org"
height="62" width="150"></span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
<td width="355">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese,
Of Counsel</span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Lewis Roca Rothgerber
LLP |
</span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>One South Church Avenue
Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona
85701-1611</span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>(T) 520.629.4428 | (F)
520.879.4725</span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx";
target="_new" title="Email
User">AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx</a></span></u></b><b><span>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.lrrlaw.com/"; target="_new"
title="Lewis and Roca Webpage">
<span>www.LRRLaw.com</span></a></span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="19">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span></span></b><span></span></p>
<br>
</td>
<td width="25">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span> </span></b><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span> Julie
Hedlund [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria';
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de
Saint Géry<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter
to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Anne,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Staff notes the following from
the SCI Charter:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>"Reporting</span></strong><span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span>At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI
Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update
concerning:</span><span></span></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
The issues dealt with and related status</li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO
Council</li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
An activity timeline"</li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thus, a report is a requirement
in the Charter.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Best regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Julie</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
</span><span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<br>
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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|