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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I will just followup with a few remarks.  Probably no more that a few
minutes.  I would say that your report be no longer than 10 minutes with
time for questions.  Thank you for reclaiming your repsonsiblity for
this report.  I am grateful that we were reminded of our charter.  Would
probably do for those of us who haven't read in a while to reread it.  I
will do so before the meeting to make sure we are strictly adhering to
its guidance.  Wouldn't do for us to be advising others on process when
we ourselves are not quite kosher in our practices.

As for the no decision in one meeting practice.  You call it a
protocol.  I called it a common practice, and perhaps even common sense,
used in many groups, but nowhere codified.  Personally I first started
using the practice back when we were doing the weekly calls to find
consensus on the new gTLD program.  Many have used it since then.  I am
surprised that no WG or other you participated in, used the technique. 
But in any case, it is a voluntary practice.  We never did it explicitly
in SCI, because previous chairs were careful to be deliberate and make
sure there was enough bottom-up discussion to develop a position before
a decision was made.  This generally takes a few meetings.  Often
members have to go back to their constituencies before they can give
final approval.  That is a lesson you yourself have shown by example on
many occasions.

I understand the enthusiasm of a new chair to make the trains run on
time, but the SCI is supposed to be slow, plodding and deliberative. Our
role is essentially conservative, only touching and fixing that which
needs to be fixed.  We are not here to craft new ways of doing things,
just to help out when something is not working right.  Sure we should do
the best we can to cover eventualities when asked to deal with an issue,
but opening an issue just becasue someone thought of a new posbility
that might be significant someday, may be stretching our mission.

And as Mary's note indicated, several of the points in your letter
seemed to be contrary to prior positions of the group.  It is fine to
change direction, but that should only be done after the previous
opinion is explored and understood and the group reaches new consensus.

Thanks

avri



On 27-Jan-15 21:18, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
> Thanks Avri.  I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we
> split the time for our respective reports?  (Lori and I can work out
> who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones
> etc.)  I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both
> the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to
> Council.
>
>  
>
> Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January
> 20 mp3 and/or transcript.  I was not previously aware of a protocol to
> “never make a decision in one meeting”.  We can certainly discuss this
> within SCI on our next call.
>
> Anne
>
>  
>