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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

For what it’s worth, I did put this into the AC room chat during the SCI’s last 
call:

“I would, as Greg suggested, postpone the review of the consensus levels after 
the GNSO review is done. I believe this is what we had planned at the time this 
came up.”

This was, if I recall correctly, in response to what Greg had said:

“With regard to the consensus level issue, this is one that unlike the other 
two I think actually may be best dealt with after the GNSO review and the 
Westlake Report and all that stuff comes out because I think that may 
conceivably relate to some of the output of that."

So I am in favour of NOT working on a review of the consensus levels until 
after the GNSO review is done, and we have the Westlake recommendations.

If I also recall correctly, one of the chief concerns with simultaneously 
dealing with the 10-day rule waiver and the resubmitted motions was that they 
would be best dealt with using amendments to the operating procedures in two 
different sections. This might have necessitated two separate SCI projects with 
two separate public comment periods. That was a valid enough reason to deal 
with one and then the other, and I factored that in when the decision was made 
to not include resubmitted motions with the waiver. I still do think we should 
work on getting this done. It doesn’t make much sense to me to not have the 
waiver apply to resubmitted motions. There are plenty of safeguards in both 
processes to ensure they are not abused. The SCI did some pretty good work on 
those when we came up with out recommendations.

Again…, for the record, I’m also fine picking up the task of formalising 
procedures for friendly amendments as soon as we can, and as soon as the GNSO 
council deems it appropriate/practical. There is no mention of how friendly 
amendments are used in the GNSO operating procedures, but they are used quite 
frequently, and often become problematic.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
>  
> <image001.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 | (F) 520.879.4725
> AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | 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 3:44 PM
> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair 
> Jonathan Robinson
>  
> Hi,
> 
> I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time.  
> I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being 
> run.  
> And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided.  
> 
> SCI has always been a deliberative body.  We discuss things more that once 
> and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a 
> meeting.  Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in 
> one meeting.  This seems like a excellent practices.  And while in the past 
> that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may 
> make such a practice necessary.  
> 
> As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion.
> 
> As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be 
> able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter.  Or 
> perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote:
> 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
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 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.