Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] [council] Motion for SCI Proposed Modifications Relating to Elections and Motions
Hi Anne, On its meeting of July 21 2016, the GNSO Council voted on a motion to adopt the charter of the GNSO Review Working Group. My understanding is that a Council discussion was held in Helsinki in preparation for the creation of this working group, and the adoption of its charter. This discussion included that the working group, which would work on implementing a number of recommendations made by Westlake (the independent examiner) following their review of the GNSO, would also assume the role that the SCI performs. This discussion resulted in this motion being adopted on July 21, where the decision was made by the GNSO Council to disband the SCI following the completion of its last two remaining tasks (procedures on submission of motions and Chair/V. Chair elections): please see resolved clause 2 of the 2nd motion here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2016. On July 27 2016, I sent an email to the SCI list informing the committee that this motion had passed (https://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg01801.html). I had also assumed that the Councillors of each of the stakeholder groups and constituencies of the GNSO discussed this with their respective groups prior to voting. I also forwarded a call for volunteers for the GNSO Review Working Group to the SCI list in hope that as many of the SCI members as possible would join the working group (https://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvem-impl-sc/msg01802.html). The format for this working group is slightly different to that which we are used to in the GNSO, in that it has voting members who are appointed by the GNSO SGs/Cs, as well as non-voting participants and observers similar to how they function in cross-community working groups. The NCSG hasn’t appointed its members to this WG yet, but we are actively working on it. Several of our members, however, have signed up as participants in the WG, including myself. There was an online sign-up sheet for those interested in becoming involved with this working group, and the announcement calling for volunteers for this WG indicated that the sign-up sheet would be online and open until August 19. If this has gone by unnoticed by enough members of this committee, and there is interest from SCI members who have not signed up to do so, then perhaps a request could be made to reopen the sign-up process for a while. I suggest that folks who would like to do so go back to your representatives on Council to get this done. This seems to be the most logical approach to me. You do bring up an interesting point though, Anne. The GNSO Review WG is not chartered to perform periodic reviews of the GNSO, which is the case for the SCI as you pointed out. That may be a bit of an oversight on the Council’s part, including myself in my capacity of Council liaison to the SCI. Still…, I don’t recall the SCI actually conducting a review of the GNSO during my time on this committee, but I was appointed to the SCI in 2013, and the committee was around for a couple of years before I joined it. Still…, I think it is pertinent to point this issue out to the GNSO Council during it meeting the day after tomorrow, and I will do that. Thanks for pointing it out to me, Anne. I am happy to continue the discussion on this list as well. Thanks again, Anne. Amr > On Aug 30, 2016, at 9:00 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Amr, > It doesn’t make sense to me that the SCI would be “disbanded” and “cease to > exist” as you put it because this work was completed. The SCI Charter > includes a periodic review of GNSO procedures and any other matter that the > GSNO Council elects to refer to the SCI. > > On what basis have you concluded that GNSO Council intends to eliminate the > SCI? > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > 520.629.4428 office > 520.879.4725 fax > AAikman@xxxxxxxx <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxx> > _____________________________ > <image003.png> > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:50 AM > To: Angie Graves > Cc: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] [council] Motion for SCI Proposed > Modifications Relating to Elections and Motions > > Hi Angie, > > It means exactly what it appears to. If the GNSO Council adopts this motion > on its September 1st meeting, then the SCI will officially cease to exist. > > Please note that the decision to disband the SCI will not actually take place > on September 1st. The GNSO Council has already made this decision on its July > 21st meeting, and will only effectively confirm that decision, or perhaps > just activate the next steps. This action is also directly associated with > the GNSO Council’s consideration of the motion to adopt the SCI’s > recommendation on its latest (and last) two projects, which are now complete. > For reference, please check the second resolved clause under the second > motion here: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2016 > <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+21+July+2016>. > > The only scenario I can think of, where the SCI continues to operate for a > while is if the Council disagrees with something in the SCI’s > recommendations, votes against the motion, and sends us some more work to do. > However, I find this to be extremely unlikely. > > So this is really just follow-up to last month’s decision. Please let me know > if you still have more questions. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Aug 23, 2016, at 1:43 AM, Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Dear Amr, > > Will you please clarify the meaning of "officially disband the SCI"? > > Thank you, > > Angie > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > Hi, > > In my capacity as the Council liaison to the SCI, I sent this to the Council > list a few days ago, and neglected to send a copy here. Thought you should > all know. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>> > > Subject: Re: [council] Motion for SCI Proposed Modifications Relating to > > Elections and Motions > > Date: August 16, 2016 at 3:43:40 PM GMT+2 > > To: "GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> > > > > Hi again, > > > > I’ve attached a revised motion to this email. Apart from making the changes > > recommended by Rubens. > > > > I’ve also taken the opportunity to follow up on a motion from the Council’s > > July 16th meeting disbanding the SCI following the completion of the two > > tasks addressed in this motion. So if the Council does vote in favour of > > this motion, I thought it’d make sense to officially disband the SCI in the > > process. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > > > >> On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx > >> <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi Rubens, > >> > >> I certainly consider this a friendly amendment to the motion, and not too > >> cliché for my taste. :) > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Amr > >> > >>> On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx > >>> <mailto:rubensk@xxxxxx>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Em 15 de ago de 2016, à(s) 16:11:000, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> <mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>> escreveu: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> In my capacity as the Council liaison to the Standing Committee on > >>>> Improvements, I am submitting this motion to adopt modifications to the > >>>> GNSO Operating Procedures proposed by the SCI. These modifications > >>>> involve both the process for GNSO Councillors to submit motions, in > >>>> addition to the process to elect a GNSO Council Chair/Vice-Chair(s). > >>>> > >>>> As all SCI recommendations go, the SCI has achieved full consensus on > >>>> these recommendations, and a public comment period on the proposed > >>>> modifications was opened on July 2nd 2016, and closed on August 14th > >>>> 2016 > >>>> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-op-procedures-2016-07-05-en > >>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-op-procedures-2016-07-05-en>). > >>>> > >>>> With the creation of the GNSO Review WG, these should be the final two > >>>> projects the SCI will have worked on before it is standing-no-more, and > >>>> I just wanted to say that working on this committee has been a pleasure. > >>>> The SCI’s done some really solid work for the GNSO over the years, and > >>>> its members have worked very well to give the GNSO Council > >>>> recommendations that have been very diligently thought out. Both present > >>>> and past members of the SCI have my gratitude. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> Amr > >>>> > >>>> <Motion for Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures Relating > >>>> to Elections and Motions 15-08-16.docx> > >>> > >>> Amr, > >>> > >>> Perhaps adding that gratitude to the motion would be in order ? I know > >>> it's a bit cliché, but in this case we mean it, I believe. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Rubens > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > 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.