June 2012 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Deferrals - Key questions / logic points in order to try to achieve consensus
by Jonathan Robinson July 12, 2012

July 12, 2012

Key Questions / Issues . Do we permit 1st deferrals? . Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals? . If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test? . Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of vote / test? . Can a deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test to overrule? . Do we permit 2nd deferrals? . If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test? . Do we permit 3rd deferrals? My Answers . Do we permit 1st deferrals? Yes . Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals? Yes . If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test? No, we trust the provider of the reason . Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to some form of vote / test? Yes, they are automatically granted . Can a 1st deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test to overrule? Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to deny . Do we permit 2nd deferrals? Yes . If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of vote / test? Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of the council to permit . Do we permit 3rd deferrals? No. A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage. Note: I use "withdrawn" not "tabled" as tabled in my English, tabled means put forward / submitted not withdrawn

3 2

GNSO Working session transcripts
by Glen de Saint Géry June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

1 0

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferrals - Key questions / logic points in order to try to achieve consensus
by J. Scott Evans June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Thanks for this Jonathan. ------------------------------ On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 12:25 AM PDT Jonathan Robinson wrote: >Key Questions / Issues > > > >. Do we permit 1st deferrals? > >. Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals? > >. If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test? > >. Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of >vote / test? > >. Can a deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test >to overrule? > >. Do we permit 2nd deferrals? > >. If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of >vote / test? > >. Do we permit 3rd deferrals? > > > >My Answers > > > >. Do we permit 1st deferrals? >Yes > >. Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals? >Yes > >. If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test? >No, we trust the provider of the reason > >. Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to >some form of vote / test? >Yes, they are automatically granted > >. Can a 1st deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / >test to overrule? >Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of >the council to deny > >. Do we permit 2nd deferrals? >Yes > >. If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of >vote / test? >Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] >vote of the council to permit > >. Do we permit 3rd deferrals? >No. A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage. >Note: I use "withdrawn" not "tabled" as tabled in my English, tabled means >put forward / submitted not withdrawn >

1 0

Council report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012

All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf-

5 10

SCI report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012

Good morning Glen! Would you be so kind to forward the SCI report attached to the council and post it to the agenda? Thank you and looking forward to see you in Prague Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

2 1

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 21, 2012

June 21, 2012

Actually, my recollection/impression was that when the SCI charter was drafted the phrase was intended to refer to SGs and Cs as well. Can staff or someone with a better memory than I recall one way or the other? Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors. "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com> wrote: I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working group or other team with an adopted GNSO charter. It does not appear to me on the surface that this phrase refers to a constituency. I doubt SCI wants to become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather than from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO which are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or stakeholder group. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman(a)LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM To: avri(a)acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council would be what is covered by the rules. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi, Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc. One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue. But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter. avri Krista Papac <Krista.Papac(a)ausregistry.com> wrote: >My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and >take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >Council. > >Krista Papac >General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd >Email: >krista.papac(a)ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac@ausregistry.com> >Web: www.ausregistry.com > >From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of >KnobenW(a)telekom.de >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM >To: AAikman(a)lrlaw.com; marika.konings(a)icann.org; avri(a)acm.org >Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda > >The charter reads: ><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects >to receive detailed input from the group affected by the >process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by >either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>> > >Request from individuals is not included. > > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > >________________________________ >Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] >Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20 >An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; >marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; >avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> >Cc: >gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the >charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would >have to be limited by the charter. >Anne > >[cid:image001.gif@01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel >Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, >Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 >AAikman(a)LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * >www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> >P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying >of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was >received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the >original message. > > >________________________________ >From: >owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s >c(a)icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf >Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM >To: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; >avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> >Cc: >gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my >first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with >flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. >Flexibility could mean that the SCI >- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are >raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it >exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the >SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further >requests from outside >- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and >make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope >- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was >questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I >think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific >than relevant to the GNSO > >What do others mean? > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > >________________________________ >Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] >Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 >An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich >Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, > >Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council >which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on >who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for >public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus >items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues >with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion >with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that >individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements >topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either >the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should >individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or >should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get >clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that >have proposals / questions. > >With best regards, > >Marika > >From: "KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" ><KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> >To: >"gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" ><gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org >>> >Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda > >All: > >this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 >UTC: > >- Roll call >- Statement of Interests >- Approval of the agenda >- Background information (and suggested solutions) on > - Deferral of Motions > - Proxy Voting Procedure > - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP >- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda >- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > >________________________________ > >For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to >www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. >Phoenix (602)262-5311 > > > >Reno (775)823-2900 > >Tucson (520)622-2090 > > > >Albuquerque (505)764-5400 > >Las Vegas (702)949-8200 > > > >Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 > > >This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity >to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the >intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering >the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly >prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please >notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by >return E-Mail or by telephone. > >In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you >that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not >intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer >for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the >taxpayer. ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer

5 4

AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

6 10

SCI meeting agenda
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

All this is the suggested agenda for the SCI F2F meeting in Prague on Sunday, 24 June, 6:00 UTC: 1. Roll call 2. Statement of Interests 3. Approval of the agenda 4. Discuss council reaction from Saturday 5. Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Proxy Voting Procedure - Deferral of Motions - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP 6. Raising an issue 7. Working Group survey 8. AOB - issues brought up from the floor - next meeting Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
by James M. Bladel June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

3 2

FW: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation
by Marika Konings June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

Dear All, Please find below the notes from this week's SCI meeting. With regard to the request to obtain further information on the process the Board uses for deferrals, we can report that there is currently no formal procedure used by the Board. In practice, the Board can and does defer action on items at the discretion of the Board and Chair, but it doesn't follow a formal procedure. Please note that the next meeting is scheduled F2F in Prague on Sunday 24 June from 8.00 – 9.00 local time in conference room Congress III. With best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Reply-To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: Adobe Connect - Note Pod Content from Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation SCI Meeting Agenda - 18 June 2012 1. Roll call 2. Statement of Interests 3. Approval of the agenda 4. Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP 5. Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda 6. AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Notes: - Deferral of Motions: Should this remain an informal practice or should it become a formal procedure (original question of the GNSO Council)? Some expressed support for formalizing this procedure, but some also suggested it could continue as an informal practice, with the option to review in a certain amount of time. Possible requirements if policy is formalized: deferral only for maximum one meeting (although exceptions may have to possible?) / NCA should also be able to defer motions (not only SG/C) / ony allow deferral if information is incomplete (and until information is complete) / One deferral per SG or C?. If SCI response is 'yes' it should be a formal process, it should also include a recommendation for how this process should look for GNSO Council consideration. Staff to check what process, if any, the Board uses for deferral of motions. Issue was also discussed in earlier discussions of PPSC - aren't same arguments still valid for keeping it an informal process? Instead of formal process, SCI could also consider issuing 'guidance'. No decision yet on formal or informal process. Wolf to report back to the GNSO Council on the status of discussions in the update in Prague - might result in further guidance. Consider taking a poll amongst membership - but question would need to be clear. Wolf to circulate proposed language to the list re. update.

1 0