RE: [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

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Julie. Members cannot tell from the transcript which two items have gone 
in for approval on the Consent Agenda.  Can you let us know by reply to all?
Thank you,
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01D07099.5B5E7A90]

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<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | 
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>








From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 7:26 AM
To: Avri Doria; <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [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

Dear Avri and Anne,

As Mary noted in a previous message since the SCI requests are currently on the 
Consent Agenda for the Council meeting no motions are required.  If that should 
change today while the agenda is under review by the Council Chairs I'll 
provide motions that Avri can submit by today's deadline.  However, there have 
been no objections since Friday to Jonathan's suggestion to include the SCI 
requests in the Consent Agenda.

Best regards,
Julie

From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>
Organization: Technicalities
Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 4:15 PM
To: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [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

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><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.






________________________________
[Image removed by sender. Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/>


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



________________________________

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.