January 2013 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Working Group Survey Results and Comments
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 20, 2013

Feb. 20, 2013

Dear SCI members, Attached is the summary of the survey results. The summary does not include specific comments, so I have provided them as a separate attached document. Please note that the survey results do not capture the names of respondents as these were not requested in the survey questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 1

SCI Meeting: Proposed Agenda for 23 January 2013
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

Dear SCI members, Here is a proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting on behalf Ron Andruff and Avri Doria. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda for 23 January 2013: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (10 mins) 8. Re-submitting a motion (10 mins) 9. AOB (2 mins)

4 5

Actions from SCI Meeting 09 January 2013
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Dear SCI members, Below are the actions I captured from today's meeting. Please let me know of any comments or changes you may have. Our next meeting is scheduled in two weeks on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 21:00 UTC for 1 hour. A notice will be sent out with the call details. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions from SCI Meeting 09 January 2013 1. SCI Member List -- Staff will update the list of members to reflect that Anne Aikman-Scalese will be the Primary Member and J.Scott will be the Alternate Member for the Intellectual Property Constituency. 2. Chair/Vice Chair Elections -- Staff will draft language to add Chair and Vice-Chair elections and terms to the Charter. The term for the Chair will be 1 year with a 1 year option to extend. Vice-Chairs can run for the Chair position and thus are not term limited to 1+1. 3. Working Group Survey — SCI members are encouraged to read the Working Group Guidelines and take the survey if they have not already done so. 4. Termination/Suspension of a PDP -- J. Scott sent revised language to the list. Avri, Thomas, J. Scott, and Anne will work with the revised language and send revisions to the list. 5. Liaison from the GNSO Council -- Keep on agenda for next meeting. 6. Re-Submtting a Motion -- Continue discussion on the list and keep on the agenda for the next meeting.

1 3

Charter Revisions - Chair/Vice Chair Elections
by J. Scott Evans Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

Pursuant to comments from Ron and Anne yesterday, I am circulating a revision to the proposed charter changes to take into account the ability of the Chair and Vice Chair to opt for a second term without election. Please see the attached. I hope this captures the agreed upon process. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com

1 0

On SCI consensus and impasse
by Avri Doria Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

Hi, As I wrote in the Adobe chat, I strongly resist any attempt to change the SCI into a rough consensus group. I think it is important, as we saw with the PDP termination case, that some one holding out because they see a problem improves our product. Also, we do have a mechanism for getting around this. At any point, the SCI can make a consensus decision to go rough consensus. As someone who sometimes finds herself in a minority of one and in impasse with others in a group (happens in NCUC and NCSG too) I recognize that there are possible situations that would involve principles that could not be bridged. In such a circumstance, though, I can imagine being part of a consensus agreement to a rough consensus decision with dissenting opinion. The point, however, is that this has to be the exception and has to be agreed to by all. avri

2 3

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
by Alain Berranger Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

Thanks Jennifer, Common sense speaks again! The black belt argument will often close a discussion, though!!!! ;-) Many involved with ICANN would likely benefit from six sigma training... including myself! Let's see what the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation I discussions will lead too. Cheers, Alain On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe(a)wolfedomain.com> wrote: > Hi everyone,**** > > ** ** > > I hope your new year is off to a great start. I know I am new to the > council and this committee so forgive me if I am misunderstanding our role, > but what confused me about this particular issue was that all of the > councilors had the opportunity for discussion, to ask questions and for > consensus. A vote was taken and then a councilor asked further clarifying > questions and then wanted to change his vote. From a strictly process > standpoint, I am not clear on why a new vote should be allowed once the > time for discussion and clarifying questions close. In any other > parliamentary procedure, legislative body or corporate governance on > boards, once a vote is taken, that’s it, even if someone misunderstood > something procedurally or substantively. **** > > ** ** > > I fully understand the need for consensus, but once discussion closes and > a vote is taken, from a process and procedural standpoint, it’s a slippery > slope to start allowing votes to be re-opened because one person asked a > clarifying question after the vote was taken. It not only takes up > valuable time of the council in discussing new issues, but could be used > inappropriately in the future if this were permissible. **** > > ** ** > > I look forward to participating in this committee. I have a black belt in > six sigma process improvement and pride myself on finding ways to function > more efficiently and hope I can provide meaningful contributions to this > committee. **** > > ** ** > > Have a great weekend!**** > > ** ** > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > managing director, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy adivsory firm*** > * > > managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual > property law firm**** > > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012* > > *Follow Me:** **[image: Description: Description: > cid:image001.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe> > * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image002.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]*<http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/> > * **[image: Description: Description: cid:image003.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]*<https://twitter.com/jenwolfe> > * > **Blog:** **What will you do when your CEO asks why you didn’t apply for > a gTLD?* <http://jenwolfe.com/c-suite/>** > > *Book:** **Domain Names Rewired*<http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312…> > ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:05 PM > *To:* Alain Berranger; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > *Cc:* avri(a)acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > > *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > ** ** > > All,**** > > ** ** > > I am still missing the rationale as to why the NCSG representatives > believe this rule should be in place for a bottom-up consensus driven > organization. **** > > ** ** > > Please help me understand.**** > > ** ** > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman** > **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs***** > > ** ** > > *From:* Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger@gmail.com<alain.berranger(a)gmail.com>] > > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:01 PM > *To:* Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > *Cc:* avri(a)acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; > jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com; Neuman, Jeff > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > I agree fully with Mary's arguments.**** > > ** ** > > Best, Alain**** > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> wrote:**** > > Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this week, my > view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and > voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or > tweaked) in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other > similar circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote > in relation to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the > rules (e.g. effect of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction > from a Councilor's particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type > of circumstance that ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in > substance is the same motion.**** > > > > Cheers > Mary**** > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 **** > > ** ** > > >>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>>**** > > All,**** > > **** > > My understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements > may be made for the future.**** > > **** > > When the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe > that there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of > a motion that had recently been voted on.**** > > **** > > This specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us > on this in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all. > **** > > **** > > We have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at > as general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the > example that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future. > **** > > **** > > Thanks,**** > > **** > > **** > > Jonathan**** > > **** > > *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of * > Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > *Sent:* 09 January 2013 16:58 > *To:* avri(a)acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > *Cc:* jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task**** > > **** > > I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in this > specific instance: > > - the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on. > > - just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were > not aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should > be as it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction > of something that was properly introduced and voted on. > > - In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had > given instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did > not, the fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO > rules, and if a constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the > time to discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a > motion (again, one properly introduced, seconded and voted on). > > - In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and > referred the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion > (without necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI > before re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands > are somewhat tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through > - the mind boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and > vote was improper or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive > context within which ICANN is operating. > > Cheers > Mary**** > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 **** > > > >>> Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> 01/09/13 2:01 PM >>> > > Another thought experiment. > > There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy > Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, > some voters got confused and voted against. > > Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote? > > Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just > reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and > perhaps even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote? > > A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive > that its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to > have a vote rescheduled at the next meeting? > > avri > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be > reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on > reconsideration in the ByLaws. > > > > One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one > of those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case > it was the Chair who had been on the losing side. > > > > We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote: > > > >> I tend to agree, > >> > >> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com>; > >> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri(a)acm.org>; Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org>; > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com>; > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's Rules" type > inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that would permit > a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter how > obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going > to discuss tomorrow. > > > > the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated. > > > >> > >> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO > Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can > provide prior to our call. > > > > It is all in the g-counci Procedures. > > And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions > already made. > > > > > >> > >> Thank you > >> 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<owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org>] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM > >> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > >> Cc: Jonathan Robinson > >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I guess I do not support that. > >> > >> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it > back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should > have past. > >> > >> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for > motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has > NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of > the WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council. > >> > >> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should > never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair > from doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination > of things that could go wrong, then we need new rules. > >> > >> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an NCUC > based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go > her way. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Avri, > >>> > >>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end, the > spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two > votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some > evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did > not happen. > >>> > >>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is evidence > of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>> > >>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com <avri(a)ella.com>] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>> To: Neuman, Jeff > >>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; Jonathan Robinson > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but that is > not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the SG > at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the > Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure > that the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a > motion has passed or not. > >>> > >>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the > reality of the situation. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not supposed > to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to "consensus" on > items. If there is a "consensus" at any time of the Council on any given > policy (provided that the processes were followed by the working group > making the recommendation), then that is what should govern. The last > evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of Economics as > supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over and over > again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on > consensus. > >>>> > >>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like the > result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that > ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there had to > be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant and > unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse > within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence > that there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, > harassment, fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a > second measurement of consensus is not an issue. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> > >>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com <avri(a)ella.com>] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time > >>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > >>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff > >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for Councillors to > vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by their group), > two remedies were possible. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case when it > is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency and > accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how to > make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my > stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they > should be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If > it was, those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in Florida > was confusing could have taken back their votes for Buchanan, and Gore > would have been President of the US. and yes, we may wish with all our > hearts that it had been otherwise, but it wasn't. Voting does not work > according to wishes unsaid, it works in terms of the vote given. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA**** > > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> > **** > > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > **** > > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org* > *** > > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ**** > > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire > ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le > destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au > destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement > interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le > reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou > si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer > sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de > votre coopération.**** > > ** ** > > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE**** > > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use > of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone > other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for > forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, > distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or > in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this > e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and > destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.**** > > ** ** > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

11 20

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 23 January 2013
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Dear All, The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Wednesday, 06 February 2013 at 21:00 UTC. Please note Wednesday at 21:00 UTC is the new time for regular meetings every two weeks! Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 at 21:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130123-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>jan (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) At the bottom of the attendance list, you will find the list of members currently subscribed to the mailing list. Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - chair Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Primary J. Scott Evans - IPC - Alternate Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair Alain Berranger - NPOC - Primary Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Thomas Rickert - NCA - Alternate Mary Wong -NCUC - Alternate Apologies : none ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Members subscribed to the mailing list Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate J Scott Evans - IPC - Alternate Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary Tony Holmes - ISPCP - Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben -- ISPCP - Primary Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - vice chair Mary Wong - Non Commercial SG - Alternate Alain Berranger - NPOC primary Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Thomas Rickert -NCA alternate James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Standiford - Registrar SG Primary Ray Fassett - RySG - Primary Jeff Neuman - RySG - Alternate Jonathan Robinson - GNSO Chair - Observer Mason Cole - GNSO Vice Chair - Observer Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Connect chat transcript 23 January 2013: Julie Hedlund:Welcome to the meeting of the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvements (SCI) Julie Hedlund:23 January 2013 Thomas Rickert:Just joined. Hello everyone! Alain Berranger, NPOC:Greetings everyone! Julie Hedlund:The Vice Chair's term shall not be similarly limited, irrespective of whether the Vice Chair choses to stand for Chair in any one year. Mary Wong:Thanks, Julie - that's what I had in mind. Nathalie Peregrine:Jennifer Wolfe has joined the AC room Anne Aikman-Scalese: consider - should the vice chair choose to run for Chair, the Vice Chair's term limit shall not prohibit the Vice Chair from doing so. Nathalie Peregrine:Wolf Ulrich has joined the call Wolf Knoben:Hello together Avri Doria:I strongly object to eliminating the requirement for full consensus. Anne Aikman-Scalese:trying to achieve full consesus is much better Mary Wong:The tenth laggard was me :) Avri Doria:i did it so long ago, i don't remember. but i thnk i added comments to the survey itself Anne Aikman-Scalese: last time Avri raised an example of no working group having been formed and no WG was formed Julie Hedlund:I have the manual up Alain Berranger, NPOC:need to sign out, thanks Avri Doria:yes, it is the sing of consensus being necessary. toerhwsie we would have accepted something with a defect Avri Doria:ok, sign not sing. Anne Aikman-Scalese:agree with Avri Wolf Knoben:would be happy to hear you singing Anne Aikman-Scalese:I like "sing" Julie Hedlund:Note that because the changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures on suspention/termination of a PDP are substantive, once the SCI approves them they will need to go out for public comment Avri Doria:I think a correlate of Hard case makes bad law, is hard case makes dangerous precedent Mary Wong:@Ron, that's my "reward"? Pshaw :) Thomas Rickert:OK Avri Doria:sure Anne Aikman-Scalese: consider - If a motion is submitted and seconded which is identical to a motion previously defeated, then the Chair shall have discretion to allow vote o the identical motion IF (state conditions)? Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Fw: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language
by J. Scott Evans Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Ron: Before I make any changes, I want to make sure I am clear. I thought the idea is that the Chair and Vice Chair are elected annually but can only serve for 2 consecutive years any the same position. I did not think that the Chair and Vice Chair could opt for a second term and thereby eliminate the need for an election. If my understanding is incorrect, I am happy to revise. Do other people have a point of view on this issue? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> To: 'J. Scott Evans' <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:31 PM Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear J Scott, The first sentence of the is incongruous with the term stated further in the paragraph, i.e. if the Chair/V Chair accept the option of taking a second year, then there would be no election that December... This needs some wordsmithing... In December of each year, the SCI should ask for volunteers from its primary members to serve as Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve for a 1-year term with the option to continue for a second 1-year term. Thanks for taking this on. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Chair/Vice Chair Elections language Dear All: I have attached a revised version of the Charter amendments related to Chair and Vice Chair elections. j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com

3 3

Agenda for SCI Meeting 09 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Dear SCI members, On behalf of the SCI Chair and Vice Chair, Ron Andruff and Avri Doria, below is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC> Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or changes. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Agenda, SCI Meeting, Wednesday, 09 January 2013 at 2100 UTC 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statement of Interests (1 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (1 min) 4. Chair/Vice Chair elections and terms and SCI Charter changes (10 mins) 5. Action on Working Group survey (10 mins) 6. Termination and Suspension of a PDP (15 mins) 7. GNSO Council Liaison to the SCI (5 mins) 8. Whether the SCI should solicit work or take on work from the GNSO Council (5 mins) 9. Re-submitting a motion ‹ Background Discussion (10 mins) 10. AOB (2 mins)

4 7

Revisions to the SCI Charter for Chair/Vice Chair Elections
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 22, 2013

Jan. 22, 2013

Dear SCI members, Please see draft language for proposed revisions to the SCI Charter to include provisions for Chair and Vice Chair elections. We will discuss these in our meeting tomorrow. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0