October 2013 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Background on New Issues: Email Voting and Procedural Waivers
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

Dear SCI members, In our last meeting on 08 October Ron Andruff suggested it would be helpful to frame the two new issues the GNSO Council has asked the SCI to study email voting and procedural waivers -- in the format of the questions listed in the charter. In addition, for future requests as Mikey O'Conner suggested staff will create an online form that requesters can complete when they have issues to bring to the SCI. The format in the charter is: 1. Which group do you represent? (E.g. Council, WG.) 2. To which rules or processes do you refer? 3. Please outline the problems 4. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? 5. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? In particular, the GNSO Council requested that the SCI should take up these two new issues in its Wrap Up meeting in Durban on 17 July. Accordingly, I've reviewed the transcript from that meeting and pulled out the relevant information from the brief discussion of these topics. I've put that information into the form of the questions from the charter. Please see the information below and also on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/16+November+2013. These issues are on the agenda for the SCI's next meeting, which will be held face-to-face in Buenos Aires on Saturday, 16 November from 0700-0845 local time. The GNSO Secretariat will send out a notice and reminders for the meeting. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Email voting: 1. Which group do you represent? GNSO Council 2. To which rules or processes do you refer? Voting 3. Please outline the problems: The Council does not have a mechanism to conduct votes outside of a meeting. 4. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? The SCI should consider whether and how the Council could vote outside of a meeting and under what circumstances. Quote from Jonathan Robinson in the Council transcript at the Wrap Up Meeting in Durban on 18 July 2013: "So I wanted - an issue I wanted us to consider maybe giving to the SCI and then to the group or to a committee to look at is I¹d like to rethink about whether potentially voting by email or something like that is a possibility? I know we¹ve looked at it on and off over the years.And if that would help speed things along it would be great to just look at that issue in just maybe we can¹t do it first time around obviously but for future..." He raised this issue because the Council was in the process of scheduling a special meeting in August to conduct a vote. 5. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? Voting by email could in some circumstances enable the Council to avoid having to schedule a special meeting for a vote that has to occur quickly. Waivers and/or Exceptions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures 1. Which group do you represent? GNSO Council 2. To which rules or processes do you refer? Submitting a motion and possibly other procedures 3. Please outline the problems: The Council does not have a mechanism to waive or invoke an exception to and of its operating procedures. An example is whether the deadline for submitting motions could be waived in certain circumstances. Quote from Jonathan Robinson in the transcript at the Wrap Up Meeting in Durban on 18 July 2013: "And essentially I wasn¹t empowered as chair by our rulebook to allow that motion to be put on the table even if technically although we have done it by precedent and prior practice, even if no one objected from the council I didn¹t really - there isn¹t really device in the rulebook to allow that to take place. So I personally I think that¹s an area we should look at is the - when and under what circumstances - formal council procedure can be bypassed in the event that there is no objection from the council?" 4. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? The SCI should consider whether and how the Council could vote outside of a meeting and under what circumstances. 5. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? A waiver mechanism could allow the Council to consider a motion or document after the deadline of notice/submission to the Council has passed.

5 7

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Background on New Issues: Email Voting and Procedural Waivers
by Ron Andruff Oct. 31, 2013

Oct. 31, 2013

Thank you, Julie. RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: 10/31/2013 14:47 (GMT-05:00) To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Background on New Issues: Email Voting and Procedural Waivers Dear SCI members, In our last meeting on 08 October Ron Andruff suggested it would be helpful to frame the two new issues the GNSO Council has asked the SCI to study — email voting and procedural waivers -- in the format of the questions listed in the charter. In addition, for future requests as Mikey O'Conner suggested staff will create an online form that requesters can complete when they have issues to bring to the SCI. The format in the charter is: Which group do you represent? (E.g. Council, WG.) To which rules or processes do you refer? Please outline the problems What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? In particular, the GNSO Council requested that the SCI should take up these two new issues in its Wrap Up meeting in Durban on 17 July. Accordingly, I've reviewed the transcript from that meeting and pulled out the relevant information from the brief discussion of these topics. I've put that information into the form of the questions from the charter. Please see the information below and also on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/16+November+2013. These issues are on the agenda for the SCI's next meeting, which will be held face-to-face in Buenos Aires on Saturday, 16 November from 0700-0845 local time. The GNSO Secretariat will send out a notice and reminders for the meeting. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Email voting: Which group do you represent? GNSO Council To which rules or processes do you refer? Voting Please outline the problems: The Council does not have a mechanism to conduct votes outside of a meeting. What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? The SCI should consider whether and how the Council could vote outside of a meeting and under what circumstances. Quote from Jonathan Robinson in the Council transcript at the Wrap Up Meeting in Durban on 18 July 2013: "So I wanted - an issue I wanted us to consider maybe giving to the SCI and then to the group or to a committee to look at is I’d like to rethink about whether potentially voting by email or something like that is a possibility? I know we’ve looked at it on and off over the years.…And if that would help speed things along it would be great to just look at that issue in just maybe we can’t do it first time around obviously but for future..." He raised this issue because the Council was in the process of scheduling a special meeting in August to conduct a vote. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? Voting by email could in some circumstances enable the Council to avoid having to schedule a special meeting for a vote that has to occur quickly. Waivers and/or Exceptions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Which group do you represent? GNSO Council To which rules or processes do you refer? Submitting a motion and possibly other procedures Please outline the problems: The Council does not have a mechanism to waive or invoke an exception to and of its operating procedures. An example is whether the deadline for submitting motions could be waived in certain circumstances. Quote from Jonathan Robinson in the transcript at the Wrap Up Meeting in Durban on 18 July 2013: "And essentially I wasn’t empowered as chair by our rulebook to allow that motion to be put on the table even if technically although we have done it by precedent and prior practice, even if no one objected from the council I didn’t really - there isn’t really device in the rulebook to allow that to take place. So I personally I think that’s an area we should look at is the - when and under what circumstances - formal council procedure can be bypassed in the event that there is no objection from the council?" What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? The SCI should consider whether and how the Council could vote outside of a meeting and under what circumstances. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? A waiver mechanism could allow the Council to consider a motion or document after the deadline of notice/submission to the Council has passed.

1 0

SCI Charter Approved by GNSO Council
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 31, 2013

Oct. 31, 2013

Dear SCI Members, At its meeting today, 31 October 2013, the GNSO Council approved the attached charter of the SCI via Motion 3 listed here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+31+October+2 013. The approved charter has been posted to the SCI wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/3.+Charter. Please note that the GNSO Council decided not to alter the decision-making process at this time, but reserved the possibility of revisiting the discussion on this issue at another time. Thus, the decision-making process of the SCI will continue as it appeared in the original charter: "Unless otherwise determined by the SCI members, committee decisions will be made by ³full consensus² process as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6)." A note has been included in the charter that this process is subject to Council consideration. As there were no volunteers for the position of liaison from the SCI to the Council, the GNSO Council decided to wait to appoint a liaison until after the new Council is seated in Buenos Aires. However, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested Mikey O'Conner as a possible liaison. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will send the link to the transcript of the GNSO Council meeting as soon as it is available. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

3 2

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions
by Ron Andruff Oct. 18, 2013

Oct. 18, 2013

Thank you, Julie. That clarifies the matter. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: 10/18/2013 10:57 (GMT-05:00) To: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com>,gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions Ron, In order for the motion to be on the table for the meeting on the 31st it must be submitted by Monday the 21st. This does not preclude, however, the Council from having the discussion on the methodology at the meeting on the 31st. It just means that if the Council agrees on the methodology in its discussion on the 31st it will also be able to approve the charter (revised or not) also during that meeting. The Charter can be revised (if necessary) following that discussion and submitted for approval during the same meeting. If the motion is not submitted by the motion deadline then the Council would not be able to approve the charter on the 31st, but would have to wait until the next meeting (Buenos Aires) to do so. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> Date: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:51 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions Thank you, Julie, Wolf-Ulrich, Having reviewed the motion, it appears to be in order with one caveat; I believe that it is imperative that the GNSO Council come to a final determination on the decision-making methodology before the motion is introduced. That may well be the intention and your understanding, but I did want to flag that for clarity. No point in voting on a ‘half-baked cake’, as it were. The SCI looks forward to hearing the outcome of the Council October 31st meeting. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 09:31 To: Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Charter Revisions Dear Ron and SCI members, Wolf-Ulrich has agreed to submit the attached motion for consideration by the Council at its meeting on 31 October for approval of the charter. At its meeting the Council also will discuss the decision-making methodology, so it is possible that the Council may revise the charter prior to its approval. I will update you on 31 October as to the outcome of the discussion, and whether the charter is revised and/or

1 0

RE: SCI Charter Revisions
by Ron Andruff Oct. 18, 2013

Oct. 18, 2013

Dear Jonathan, As I noted below the SCI took up discussion of the charter revisions based on the guidance provided by you and the Council in your message below. Accordingly, the SCI has revised the charter per the guidance as follows: 1. It confirms that the SCI is a standing committee and; 2. It includes other changes the SCI deemed necessary including updating it to reflect the current role of the SCI and to include procedures for Chair and Vice Chair elections and; 3. It includes the original text concerning the decision-making methodology and a note that the methodology is under consideration by the GNSO Council. The SCI awaits Council's final determination in this regard. Please let me know if you or the Councilors have questions concerning the modified charter or need additional information. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 09:07 To: 'jrobinson(a)afilias.info' Cc: 'council(a)gnso.icann.org'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: SCI Charter Revisions Dear Jonathan, Thank you and the GNSO Council for providing the SCI with this way forward. We will pick this up on our regularly scheduled call today. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 18:30 To: 'Ron Andruff' Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: SCI Charter Revisions Dear Ron, Thank-you again for this letter. As you will no doubt by now be aware, the Council did discuss the SCI and the important questions you have raised in your communication below. Essentially the Council agreed the following: 1. That the Charter of the SCI should be modified to confirm that the SCI is a standing committee and; 2. That the Council would like the SCI to undertake the work to propose the above and any other changes it deems necessary and then to submit these to the Council and; 3. That the SCI should not propose to modify the decision making methodology (away from full consensus) as the GNSO Council will consider this particular issue further. Noting: That should the decision be made to move from full consensus in future, that should be a decision for the GNSO Council. I trust that you will find this response and the associated guidance helpful. In addition, please could you convey my thanks on behalf of the Council to the SCI for their work to date and on-going contribution. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103 skype: jonathan.m.r From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 02 September 2013 03:44 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: SCI Charter Revisions Importance: High Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013. At its meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Sessions in Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful to more formally seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. One aspect, in particular, based on the discussion in Durban, seems clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee'. We would like the Charter to reflect that, should that indeed be the case. (I refer you to the email on this topic that I sent you on 08 July 2013, just prior to Durban.) At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for decision-making ('full consensus' versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions). The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. We now understand that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At the SCI's August 6th meeting and since then on our mailing list, members expressed an interest in helping guide the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel there should or should not be full consensus. The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using "full or unanimous consensus" or "rough or near consensus" came from my request, as in-coming SCI Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki since the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated. I also noted at the time, and do so here again for Council's edification, the SCI Charter is further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within the SCI came in two forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to unanimous consensus "improves our product" because it ensures that the Committee dedicates the time to explore all points of view and works to find stronger outcomes; the arguments against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need, or that any member choosing to remain steadfast in opposition could capture the SCI process. All SCI members however respect that balanced discussions result in consensus - in some form - leading to better appreciation of each member's contributions, more confidence in the Committee itself and in the process. The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent defined in the Guidelines, 'rough or near consent' (defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows 'full or unanimous consent'. We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN's inception. 'Near consensus', provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder group's position, while it also provides for written rationale entered into the public record for any and all dissenting opinion(s), thus providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it in coming to its own determinations. Notably, the SCI does not make any determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council, which it, in turn, discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems appropriate. On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform your discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the Council on the Charter and consensus issues, if so requested. We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the SCI Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Andruff SCI Chair Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

2 3

SCI Meeting in Buenos Aires
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

Dear Ron, Avri, and SCI members, After conferring with Wolf-Ulrich it seems the only time available that would not conflict with the GNSO Council meetings and that occurs prior to the start of the ICANN meeting on Monday would be early morning Saturday the 16th: 7:30 to 8:45 am (ending to allow 15 minutes before the start of GNSO Council meetings at 9:00 am). Alternatively, we could see if there is a topic during the weekend GNSO Council meetings that is of less interest to SCI members and that thus would allow an overlapping meeting. Please see the draft schedule at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/buenos-aires-schedule-07oct13-en.pdf and let me know if there is an alternate time you would like to suggest. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

8 8

Actions: SCI Meeting 02 July 2013
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

Dear SCI members, Please see below the actions from today's SCI meeting. Our next monthly meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET). A notice will be sent separately to the list with teleconference and Adobe Connect room details. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions from 02 July Meeting 1. Re-submitting a motion: 1) drop criteria 2.4. 2) time limit -- resubmit by the second meeting following the submission of the motion. 10 calendar days before the meeting. 3) Staff send revised document for discussion on the list. 2. SCI Charter: Letter to the Council Chair advising them that we are discussing revising our charter; include in update to Council on Saturday in Durban. 3. Working Group Self Assessment: The SCI members should review Draft 2 of the assessment tool and provide comments either on the wiki or on the list.

3 5

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 08 October 2013
by Julia Charvolen Oct. 9, 2013

Oct. 9, 2013

Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held in Buenos Aires in November. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 08 October 2013 at 19:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20131008-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>oct (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: James Bladel – Registrar Stakeholder Group – Primary Ronald Andruff – Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Primary – Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Alternate Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary Mikey O’Connor – ISPCP – Alternate Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary – Vice-Chair Amr Elsadr – NCUC - Alternate Jennifer Wolfe – NCA - primary Greg Shatan – IPC - Alternate Apologies: Nuno Garcia – NCUC – Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC - Primary Marie Laure Lemineur – NPOC ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Lars Hoffmann Glen de Saint Géry Julia Charvolen ** 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, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 08 October 2013: Ron A:Good day everyone! Just dialing in now. Amr Elsadr:Hi. I'm also dialling in. Mike O'Connor:i think that there are apologies from Anne Aikman-Scalese as well Julia Charvolen:Thank you, apologies noted Mike O'Connor:Greg, can you post the language into the chat? Greg Shatan:Upon the second resubmission of a motion (i.e. the third time the same motion comes before the Council), require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submitted motion on the consent agenda. Mike O'Connor:perfecto! thanks Mike O'Connor:i think the time limit is a separate bullet Bladel:Agree. "Motion TTL" Mike O'Connor:but in days, not seconds Bladel:or years. :) Mike O'Connor:+1 6 months Mike O'Connor:me too Mike O'Connor:but soon Mike O'Connor:maybe give Greg one more round of describing why before we move on? Bladel:Put another way: I think we're trying to develop rules that prevent people from being disruptive jerks. Not sure if that is possible. :) Julia Charvolen:Julie Hedlund joined the phone bridge Ron A:@ James: Agreed. Mike O'Connor:if somebody can make me host, i can push it up Mike O'Connor:hang on a sec Greg Shatan:@Mikey Congrats on being made a host! A round of drinks for everybody? Mike O'Connor:woohoo! Mike O'Connor:avri you're muted Amr Elsadr:Since we're not discussing the decision-making issue, I think the rest of the draft looks pretty good. Mike O'Connor:i don't think Glen is monitoring the call. Amr Elsadr:Yes. Oct 31st. Jennifer Wolfe:Sounds like a good plan! Julie Hedlund:@Ron: I take this up as an action item to send a clean version of the charter out to the list today. Ron A:Thank you Julie. Amr Elsadr:Yes we did. :) Amr Elsadr:Thnx. Jennifer Wolfe:I apologize, I have to jump off of Adobe Connect, but will try to dial back in from my mobile. Mike O'Connor:and add Amr's point to that introduction -- Julie Hedlund:@Mickey and @Amr -- I didn't catch Amr's point. Is there some text I can include? Amr Elsadr:@Julie: Some WG members filled in the questionnaire but didn't provide the feedback on the questions. It would be helpful if we could see what they were. There is too large a time-gap between filling them out and now to provide meaningful feedback. Mike O'Connor:thanks Amr Amr Elsadr:Thank YOU, Mikey. :) Mike O'Connor:is that format available somewhere? a form? i've got one to submit Julie Hedlund:@Amr: Thank you, but I think I am confused. It thought we were approaching a new WG with the questionnaire. If so, are you suggesting that we ask at the introduction for people to provide also their feedback on the questions? Amr Elsadr:The questionnaire has been submitted to the "thick" whois pdp wg. Some of the members have already filled it out. It's difficult to fill out the feedback on the questions now though. Too much time has passed. It would be helpful if we have access to the questions that we've already answered for feedback. Mike O'Connor:the trouble is that the questionnaire is in one place, the feedback is in another -- it would be nice to have them side by side when giving feedback on the questionnaire Amr Elsadr:Yeah. That would be nice. Julie Hedlund:@Mickey and Amr -- thank you very much. I will make that suggestion to Ken. Mike O'Connor:that conflicts with the Constituency meetings -- i won't be able to make it Julie Hedlund:@Mickey: Unfortunately we found it was impossible to find a time that didn't conflict. Mike O'Connor:i think almost everybody on this call will be conflicted Mike O'Connor:we're all in Constituencies Wolf Knoben:There are 2 meetings at that time: closed SG meetings and Board/GAC meeting Julie Hedlund:@Mickey: We can try to move the time of the call. We needed to get in a placeholder for the meeting. Greg Shatan:The understanding on the IPC call was that the 4:30-6 time for constituency meetings was not supposed to be encroached. Mike O'Connor:Wolf is in charge of scheduling -- i bet that's why his hand is up Julie Hedlund:@Greg: When we selected that time as a placeholder the constituency meeting hadn't been set. Bladel:Thanks everyone! Mike O'Connor:i bet that it's impossible to open up another time. Mike O'Connor:bye all Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Bye. Wolf Knoben:thanks Julie Hedlund:Thank you everyone!

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Final Revised SCI Charter
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2013

Oct. 8, 2013

Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's call, attached is the final revised SCI Charter in Word and PDF. The changes are accepted and the decision-making process is in brackets with the note that it is under consideration by the GNSO Council. This also is posted on the wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/16+or+18+November+2013 under the section "For Review." Please respond by COB, Tuesday, 15 October and indicate whether you support this version of the Charter and/or if you have suggested revisions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Action: SCI Charter
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2013

Oct. 8, 2013

Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's SCI call, the GNSO Council determined at its meeting on 05 September that the SCI should submit its suggested changes to its Charter to the Council for consideration. However, these changes would not include modifications of the current language on the decision-making methodology. I have attached the latest version of the Charter. This includes the changes and comments suggested by the Charter Drafting Sub-Team and those suggested during discussions at various SCI meetings. This also is posted in the list of documents for review for the next meeting, which will be on 08 October 2013. See the link at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/08+October+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 2