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

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I’m just trying to keep up with and would like to suggest the following:
  1.. Council report: don’t go to those details of how items are dealt with by 
different participants! Just highlight the items, the status and timeline of 
discussion and the advantage the council (and the GNSO) may take from resolving 
the item. Otherwise doubts may arise regarding the SCI capability to deal with 
the tasks.
  2.. Letter to council: I have doubts that asking the council through a letter 
would advance the work flow. I see a better chance to highlight the items – 
which have to be agreed in advance on the SCI list – together with the report 
in Singapore and make sure they are taken to the council action item list if a 
response is requested. It would be even better to make suggestions to the 
council what tasks the SCI is going to deal with. Obviously this needs SCI 
consensus in advance. But if we don’t achieve consensus here no clear guidance 
from the council can be expected – since the basic structure of both entities.

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich



From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne 
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:59 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 | (F) 520.879.4725
     
      AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx | 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
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:

  a.. The issues dealt with and related status 
  b.. Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council 
  c.. 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.