All, Please see the note below from Ron Andruff, Chair of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation. In general, the responsibility of the SCI is to provide an on-going capability to review GNSO processes and particularly to work on improvements where these processes are seen to have shortcomings. My personal feeling is that we should go for solution 1 suggested by Ron below. This could be supplemented by a variation of 2 i.e. that we invite the Chair &/or VC of the SCI to talk with the Council on specific issues as and when appropriate. Currently, Jennifer Wolfe and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben are primary members to the SCI, Thomas Rickert and Jeff Neuman are alternate members. It seems to make sense for one of these to become Council Liaison appointed by the Council. Two questions: 1. Any objections to this approach? 2. If not, any volunteers from existing primary members or alternates? Thanks, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 11 February 2013 18:21 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; mcole@5x5com.com Subject: SCI Liaison Dear Jonathan, Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review. The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective. We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI
I agree with your proposed approach. I think one of the existing council members that is currently a member of the SCI be made a formal liaison. Regards David On 19/02/2013, at 5:46 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
All,
Please see the note below from Ron Andruff, Chair of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation. In general, the responsibility of the SCI is to provide an on-going capability to review GNSO processes and particularly to work on improvements where these processes are seen to have shortcomings.
My personal feeling is that we should go for solution 1 suggested by Ron below. This could be supplemented by a variation of 2 i.e. that we invite the Chair &/or VC of the SCI to talk with the Council on specific issues as and when appropriate.
Currently, Jennifer Wolfe and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben are primary members to the SCI, Thomas Rickert and Jeff Neuman are alternate members. It seems to make sense for one of these to become Council Liaison appointed by the Council.
Two questions:
1. Any objections to this approach? 2. If not, any volunteers from existing primary members or alternates?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 11 February 2013 18:21 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; mcole@5x5com.com Subject: SCI Liaison
Dear Jonathan,
Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review.
The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective.
We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI
Thanks David. From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 19 February 2013 11:14 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] SCI Liaison I agree with your proposed approach. I think one of the existing council members that is currently a member of the SCI be made a formal liaison. Regards David On 19/02/2013, at 5:46 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote: All, Please see the note below from Ron Andruff, Chair of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation. In general, the responsibility of the SCI is to provide an on-going capability to review GNSO processes and particularly to work on improvements where these processes are seen to have shortcomings. My personal feeling is that we should go for solution 1 suggested by Ron below. This could be supplemented by a variation of 2 i.e. that we invite the Chair &/or VC of the SCI to talk with the Council on specific issues as and when appropriate. Currently, Jennifer Wolfe and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben are primary members to the SCI, Thomas Rickert and Jeff Neuman are alternate members. It seems to make sense for one of these to become Council Liaison appointed by the Council. Two questions: 1. Any objections to this approach? 2. If not, any volunteers from existing primary members or alternates? Thanks, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@ <http://rnapartners.com> rnapartners.com] Sent: 11 February 2013 18:21 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; <mailto:mcole@5x5com.com> mcole@5x5com.com Subject: SCI Liaison Dear Jonathan, Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review. The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective. We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI
I agree as well, Jonathan. (1) makes sense. Mason On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:13 AM, David Cake wrote:
I agree with your proposed approach. I think one of the existing council members that is currently a member of the SCI be made a formal liaison.
Regards David
On 19/02/2013, at 5:46 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
All,
Please see the note below from Ron Andruff, Chair of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation. In general, the responsibility of the SCI is to provide an on-going capability to review GNSO processes and particularly to work on improvements where these processes are seen to have shortcomings.
My personal feeling is that we should go for solution 1 suggested by Ron below. This could be supplemented by a variation of 2 i.e. that we invite the Chair &/or VC of the SCI to talk with the Council on specific issues as and when appropriate.
Currently, Jennifer Wolfe and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben are primary members to the SCI, Thomas Rickert and Jeff Neuman are alternate members. It seems to make sense for one of these to become Council Liaison appointed by the Council.
Two questions:
1. Any objections to this approach? 2. If not, any volunteers from existing primary members or alternates?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 11 February 2013 18:21 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; mcole@5x5com.com Subject: SCI Liaison
Dear Jonathan,
Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review.
The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective.
We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI
Jonathan, A liaison, by choice, not duress, makes quite a lot of sense. Berard --------- Original Message ---------Subject: [council] FW: SCI Liaison From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> Date: 2/19/13 1:46 am To: council@gnso.icann.org All, Please see the note below from Ron Andruff, Chair of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation. In general, the responsibility of the SCI is to provide an on-going capability to review GNSO processes and particularly to work on improvements where these processes are seen to have shortcomings. My personal feeling is that we should go for solution 1 suggested by Ron below. This could be supplemented by a variation of 2 i.e. that we invite the Chair &/or VC of the SCI to talk with the Council on specific issues as and when appropriate. Currently, Jennifer Wolfe and Wolf-Ulrich Knoben are primary members to the SCI, Thomas Rickert and Jeff Neuman are alternate members. It seems to make sense for one of these to become Council Liaison appointed by the Council. Two questions: 1. Any objections to this approach? 2. If not, any volunteers from existing primary members or alternates? Thanks, Jonathan From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 11 February 2013 18:21 To: 'Jonathan Robinson' Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; mcole@5x5com.com Subject: SCI Liaison Dear Jonathan, Following the recent change of leadership of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), with the former Chair being a member of the GNSO Council, the SCI is now in a situation where neither the Chair or the Vice-Chair are members of the GNSO Council. At the same time, the SCI is responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations that came out of the last GNSO review. The SCI considers it important to have a direct line of communication with the GNSO Council as most of the issues under consideration are a result of GNSO Council requests and SCI recommendations are likely to impact the GNSO Council operations. As a result, the SCI would like to propose that the GNSO Council consider appointing a liaison to the SCI. From the SCI's perspective, such a liaison could be appointed in two different ways: (1) a 'traditional' liaison is appointed by the GNSO Council, i.e. a member of the GNSO Council is appointed to serve as the liaison to the SCI as described in the GNSO Working Groups; or (2) the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the SCI serve as liaisons to the GNSO Council and are able to participate as observers in GNSO Council meetings either upon invitation (when issues of relevance are discussed) or as standing observers. Obviously it is the GNSO Council's prerogative to decide on the solution that is deemed most appropriate and effective. We look forward to receiving your feedback in due course. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff Chair SCI
participants (4)
-
David Cake -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson -
Mason Cole