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

[Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the questions proposed.  It would be helpful to see the
context/report when/if it becomes available.

Angie


On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>  Thanks Julie.   I should correct the deadline for responses to *Thursday
> February 5 20:00 UTC* – (as Feb 4 is Weds.)
>
>
>
> I appreciate knowing about the task assigned in relation to review of the
> Westlake report.  My observation is simply that SCI should read it before
> commencing any work on developing a plan for periodic review.  To clarify,
> I am not implying in any way that SCI should itself be the reviewer of the
> Westlake Report.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:12 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx'
> *Cc:* Mary Wong
> *Subject:* Re: SCI Chair's Report to Council
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Dear Anne,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll.  Mary and I think it
> will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet
> expressed an opinion.
>
>
>
> Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out — because some SCI
> members may not be aware of this — that there is a GNSO group already
> tasked to review the Westlake report.  That group is the GNSO Review
> Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe.  See the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> *From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@xxxxxxx>,
> "'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject: *SCI Chair's Report to Council
>
>
>
>  *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
>
>
>
>   *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
> *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://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
>
>
>
>   *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
> *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx
> <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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
>