[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Anne,

On 03-Apr-15 15:46, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> Thanks Mary.  We look forward to the report as to the discussion that
> occurred on March 19.  It appears to me that one of the issues raised
> in our report in the January meeting was dropped but that a voting
> threshold issue previously put on hold may have been picked up.   Can
> you or Avri  please advise by reply to all?

The main part of the report can be had by reading the transcript from
that meeting.  It is found at:
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-19mar15-en.pdf>

I suggest that anytime you are curious about what happened in the
council meeting, you check out the transcript.  It get posted rather
quickly.  If you have an specific questions after reading the
transcript, I will be happy to answer if I know the answer, or else will
find it.  If the group have any issue they want me to take the council,
I am ready and waiting.  And if I have a subject on which I feel it is
necessary to communicate to the group as the liaison, I will do so.

I have appended the appropriate section of the transcript below for your
convenience.

As Mary said, they are working on the motions.

In other words nothing to report.

avri


page 53
> So let’s deal with 11 first, an item that we had a couple of
> prospective pieces of work for the standing committee on improvements
> that were going to be in the pipeline. They are now adequately scoped
> with the help of Staff or at least there is a form of I think we’ll
> call it a template. And those templates are now populated.
> So the question is whether or not to refer these to the SCI. I just
> wonder whether there is any comment or question on these and where we
> take these.
> I looked at these two myself and I found them to be - both items which
> just feel to me that if they are (unintelligible) scoped, we could
> usefully do with some input on developing these. They weren’t created
> in a vacuum; we’ve run into real life issues.
> Avri, would you or Mary like to provide any other background or
> comment on these two items and whether or not we could usefully refer
> them to the SCI (unintelligible)?
> Mary, go ahead.
> Mary Wong: Hi Jonathan and everybody, it’s Mary again. And Avri is
> trying to unmute herself I believe so I will defer to her.
> Just to say of course that it’s not for Staff to suggest what would be
> the best course of action right now, but we can certainly provide some
> additional background if you like.

> Avri Doria: Yes hi, this is Avri. I was on my phone and couldn’t find
> the mute button. My apologies; I’m not used to using the phone.
>
> Page 54
> Yes, at the moment - I mean unfortunately perhaps, these didn’t come
> in a form of a motion but they were just ready in time. And I want to
> thank, you know, Mary and Julie for preparing them. I really just sort
> of read, reviewed and made comments so they did most of the work.
> And what they did was they captured from the two conversations we’ve
> had relating to the two issues. You know, the issues that we could
> send to the SCI. So I think people need to read the description to
> make sure that they represent the issue correctly.
> And then I believe this is something that we would need, you know, a
> function (sic) on perhaps it could fall in 

meant motion there

> the consent mode if there’s, you know, certainly been discussion on it
> and the text has been tightened. But I don't know how much further in
> these last minutes you want to go on these.
> I think the discussions that we had in Singapore are fairly
> represented. Hopefully the people that participated in those
> discussions will make sure that they are.
> And then I think we need to, you know, I think this would be a
> majority type vote, but I think it would be a motion that we would
> send it. Thanks

(i hate reading what i say in transcripts - so many 'you knows' - must
work on that.)

> .
> Jonathan Robinson: Thanks Avri. I mean I too appreciate the work
> that’s gone into these, and so I think let’s see if we can’t review
> these further, let’s make sure we’re satisfied with them, and then as
> you say, bring them to the Council then formally. We’ll consider this
> a preliminary discussion.
> To my mind, at least one of these items is something which we could
> usefully have as process improvement. So I’m attracted to putting at
> least one through the process if not both, and it will be useful to
> get other input, as you say, refining the content if necessary and
> then bringing them forward for being dealt with by the SCI.







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com