Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 04 June 2015
Hi Anne, We have some language that had been previously suggested by Mary and which also is the language Amr retrieved prior to our meeting. I'm just checking to see if we want to make any changes to it before we (or Amr) send it to the list. Thanks, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:14 PM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 04 June 2015 > Hi everyone. I had understood that Amr and staff would be working together to > put out a general e-mail asking whether there is a generally favorable view > toward the issue of giving resubmitted motions the benefit of the 10 day > waiver rule and that this general e-mail might include at least some old > language drafted previously by Mary to spark our discussion for this Saturday > morning¹s meeting at 7:45 am in the GNSO Council meeting room. > > Could staff please advise as to status of this effort? > 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 | (F) 520.879.4725 > 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 Terri Agnew > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 6:05 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 04 June > 2015 > > Dear All, > > Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements > Implementation meeting held on Thursday, 04 June 2015: > http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-04jun15-en.mp3 > > On page:http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun > <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun> > (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) > > > Attendees: > > Anne Aikman Scalese IPC Primary - Chair > > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ISPCP - Primary > > Rudi Vansnick NPOC - Primary > > Amr Elsadr NCUC - Primary > > Avri Doria NCSG Primary > > Lori Schulman IPC - Alternate > > > > Apologies: > > None > > > > ICANN Staff: > > Julie Hedlund > > Mary Wong > > Terri Agnew > > ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** > > Let me know if you have any questions. > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Terri Agnew > Adobe Chat Transcript 04 June 2015 > Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the SCI call on the 4th June 2015 > Lori Schulman:Where is the mute symbol? > Terri Agnew:Lori your mic isn't active > Lori Schulman:good. I have a bad habit of not muting. > Amr Elsadr:I can hear you Anne. > Terri Agnew:Lost audio, one moment rejoining > Lori Schulman:Am I still disqualified? Are there ever exceptions? > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:is it the wish of anybody (eg council) that the > resubmitted motion should benefit from the rule? > Rudi Vansnick:quid if motion content/context is changed ? > Amr Elsadr:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg01201.html > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:sorry Anne, I overread it. It's now clear, thanks > Amr Elsadr:This is the language Mary suggested adding to 3.3.2: "Resubmitted > motions made pursuant to Section 4.3.3 of these Operating Procedures after the > Submission Deadline must meet these requirements in addition to those detailed > in Section 4.3.3 in order to be eligible for consideration by the GNSO Council > under this Section 3.3.2." > Rudi Vansnick:what's the feeling of the councils in this ? in favor ? > Avri Doria:i think clarity was the issue. and the fact that some SCI > members were unhappy with the way our last recommendation had left it. most > were ok with it. > Avri Doria:put after it haad been poked at enough and after the SCI asked the > council to please make this an issue we could work on, we did. > Mary Wong:Yes, per what Amr is saying - first question is whether 10-day > waiver rule can/should apply to resubmitted motions > Rudi Vansnick:if the 10-day waiver is applied, a resubmitted motion could > indefinitely be resubmitted ? > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:@Mary, I thought that is the wish, so it should happen?? > Rudi Vansnick:thanks Mary > Mary Wong:@Anne, that works too - Chair's call :) > Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: I don't think the 10-day waiver rule affects how many > times a motion may be resubmitted. > Julie Hedlund:@Amr and Rudi: I think whether a motion can be resubmitted is > governed by the rules in 4.3.3. > Amr Elsadr:@Anne: Correct. > Amr Elsadr:Thanks Julie. > Mary Wong:Yes, a fresh start > Amr Elsadr:For some reason, I seem to be the only one who thinks we did > actually talk a great deal about this. :) > Avri Doria:Amr, you did talk about it a lot. But there weren't any great > discussions. > Rudi Vansnick:@Mary: +1 > Avri Doria:thee were one or two people who kept bringing it up , but the > discussion never stuck. > Amr Elsadr:Greg engaged in this discussion quite a bit. Discussions took > place both on-list and on calls, if I recall correctly. > Mary Wong:@Amr, that's right - there was discussion but people seemed to > have different ideas about what the agreed conclusion was. > Amr Elsadr:@Anne: I'm sorry, could you clarify your concern again. Not sure > I got it. > Rudi Vansnick:perhaps we are now in a state where we need to finalize the > direction > Avri Doria:i'm ambivalent on this issue. > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:staff should draft > Avri Doria:i dont mind allowing them to draft, i am not sure about asking > them to draft. > Lori Schulman:There is no harm in starting drafting. We are not approving > anything. > Julie Hedlund:@Anne: That is correct. The next meeting is in Buenos Aires. > Lori Schulman:I agree with Mary's point that a draft would be a starting > point only and a good thing to react o. > Lori Schulman:yes. agree. > Julie Hedlund:@Anne: It is the 20th early in the morning. > Mary Wong:The usual "happy" hour :) > Rudi Vansnick:at 7am ? ;-) > Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Happy hour isn't supposed to be all about coffee!! > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Saturday 7:45 > Julie Hedlund:@Wolf-Ulright I think that's correct. > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:GNSO starts at 9:00 > Amr Elsadr:Am I not getting through? > Terri Agnew:@Amr your audio is cutting out > Amr Elsadr:The way I see it, both the request and the explanation should be > provided. > Mary Wong:@Amr, staff will send you something to review before sending to > the list > Amr Elsadr:@Mary: I'll dig up what I came up with and fwd it to you as well. > Mary Wong:Gerat, thanks! > Amr Elsadr:BTW..., I won't be in BA, but will participate in the SCI meeting > remotely. > Mary Wong:@Amr, so it's confirmed you can't come? :( > Amr Elsadr:Have personal stuff I need to sort out at that time. Sorry I > won't be there. > Rudi Vansnick:thanks Anne for chairing this meeting > Mary Wong:Sorry we won't see you > Julie Hedlund:@Anne: Mary and I are drafting some slides. > Julie Hedlund:We will send them to you to review. > Amr Elsadr:Thanks Anne and all. Bye. > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks Anne and bye to all > Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC member:Thank you. > > > > > > > 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. > Attachment:
image001.gif Attachment:
smime.p7s
|
