<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
- To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'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: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:51:13 +0000
Avri, it may be helpful for you to listen to the mp3 recording of the call.
Certainly I considered your comments after the call as reflecting a lack of
consensus and have tried to be respectful of that view. The draft letter was
sent out on the Friday before the call. We did not hear back from you on that.
The mp3 of the call speaks for itself with regard to the degree of agreement
from those participating. This does not take away from the fact that you did
not agree and so we tried to resolve differences on the list subsequent to the
call. I personally tried to do so by eliminating the two items you
specifically objected to in order to try to meet the deadline.
Again, my suggestion is that as primary, you listen to the mp3 from January 20
and perhaps also consult with Stefania about that call. I realize you are
extremely busy with ICANN commitments and we certainly respect your role as
Council liaison.
Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01D03A62.39612C20]
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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:26 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; 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,
Excuse me, why do you assume that you can write a letter, have a single call
and call that consensus?
avri
On 27-Jan-15 14:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
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
[cid:image001.gif@01D03A62.39612C20]
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: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria';
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 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.
![GIF image](gifC8HnFAWS3C.gif)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|