Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think 1 and 2 would be good recommendations to include in the letter. Like I 
said before though, I would appreciate it if the context on why we want to now 
raise the issue of 10-day rule waivers’ applicability to resubmitted motions be 
presented as clearly as possible. I’d be glad to help with that, if needed.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 3, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions 
> below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4.
>  
> Lori and I are finalizing the Chair’s report to Council.  Staff has prepared 
> some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits.  For 
> purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to 
> weigh in on the two questions below.  (Please note this is an informal 
> inquiry  – not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a 
> formal SCI recommendation to Council.)
>  
> 1.       In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for 
> friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake 
> this work?
>  
> 2.       In connection with the question of considering the application of 
> the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating 
> Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
>  
>  
> With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in 
> the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only 
> three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to 
> have the results of a “straw poll” on the topic of friendly amendments.
>  
> With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this 
> topic should be addressed, but Avri does not.  Again, there is concern that 
> comment from three SCI members is incomplete.  
>  
> Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since 
> that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the “periodic 
> review” element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and 
> discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan 
> under the SCI’s “periodic review” responsibilities as to which we will need 
> formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council.  I 
> would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a “periodic review” 
> recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but 
> realize that others may have different thoughts.   This can be explored 
> further  in future calls.
>  
> Thank you,
> 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM
> To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair 
> Jonathan Robinson
>  
> Thanks Julie.  I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on 
> the list.
> 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair 
> Jonathan Robinson
>  
> Anne,
>  
> I can assist by preparing a couple of slides.  I can look back at your 
> message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points.  
> If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me 
> separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we 
> are using for Singapore presentations.
>  
> Best regards,
> Julie
>  
> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM
> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair 
> Jonathan Robinson
>  
> Hi Avri,
> Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of 
> the time with Council.  (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.)  
> Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN 
> public meeting.
>  
> Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking 
> on the best SCI working method.  This  deserves further discussion as to our 
> working process in the next SCI call.  I honestly don’t think there were any 
> inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point.  
> Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? 
>  
> Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today 
> with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made.
>  
> Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions 
> to the list.
> Anne
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 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.