June 2013 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Proposed Agenda for July Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 7, 2013

Aug. 7, 2013

Dear SCI members, Please see below the proposed agenda for the July meeting for your review. Please let us know if you have any changes. The July meeting will be scheduled when the doodle is closed. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda July 2013 SCI Meeting: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Re-submitting a motion (15 mins) 5. SCI charter revision (25 mins) 6. Working Group self assessment (10 mins) 7. AOB (5 mins)

4 6

FOR DISCUSSION: Re-Submission of a Motion
by Julie Hedlund July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013

Dear SCI members, As discussed on today's call, we will continue discussion on the list on re-submission of a motion. There was agreement on option 2 (see below), but not on which criteria to include (see comments from Anne and James in their emails below). Please send your comments to the list. This also will be on the agenda at our next meeting. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Procedure for Re-Submission of a Motion: Option 2 -- Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion -- 8 days prior to the next GNSO Council meeting. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to be taken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether to accept the re-submission. --------------------------------------------------------------- From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> >, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> >, "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> > Cc: 'Jennifer Standiford' <JStandiford(a)web.com <mailto:JStandiford@web.com> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March Re-Submitting a Motion Ron, I had wanted to report to SCI that in its full meeting in Beijing, the IPC agreed to the first two criteria listed in Item 2 of the "one or more high level criteria" to be set for resubmitting a motion. Anne --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel?Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:51 PM?To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ?Cc: Jennifer Standiford?Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER Re: Action item from SCI Meeting 06 March -- Re-Submitting a Motion?Importance: High Hello SCI Team: Last week, Jennifer and I were able to consult with the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) on this issue. We can report that RrSG members strongly favor Option #2. Additionally, Registrars agree with the proposed criteria listed, -except- for item #2.4, which they note could be redundant if Items #2.1-#2.3 are followed. Finally, RrSG members would like to see the inclusion of some limitations (per year or minimum time frame) on how frequently a motion may be re-introduced. We look forward to further discussions on our next call. Thanks-- J.

10 17

Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire
by Ken Bour June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013

SCI Members: I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an “Aha!” moment spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus far. I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag) In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag) I am attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs → Processes → Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints) and team member expertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and human. This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds “Background Contributor” to the Role list as suggested by Avri. I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from the team… Ken

7 14

FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 22 May 2013
by Julie Hedlund June 18, 2013

June 18, 2013

Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 22 May 2013. The change from today's meeting was the re-insertion of "Full Consensus" in the Decision Making Section. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in two weeks as per the Doodle. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

6 11

MP3 IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group - Wednesday 12 June 2013
by Julia Charvolen June 12, 2013

June 12, 2013

Dear All, The next IGO-INGO Protections policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group call is scheduled for Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 16:00 UTC for 2 hours. Please find the MP3 recording of the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group teleconference held on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 1500 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20130612-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb>jun The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jim Bikoff – IPC/IOC Avri Doria – NCSG Chuck Gomes – RySG Alan Greenberg – ALAC Catherine Gribbin – Red Cross Stephane Hankins – Red Cross Red Crescent Wolfgang Kleinwächter – NCSG David Maher – RySG Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC Judd Lauter – IOC/IOC Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP Christopher Rassi - Red Cross Thomas Rickert – NCA –Working group chair Greg Shatan – IPC Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – ISO David Roache-Turner - WIPO Mary Wong - NCUC Mason Cole - GNSO Council vice chair – RrSG Apologies: Guilaine Fournet - IEC ICANN Staff: Berry Cobb Brian Peck Erika Randall Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat Transcript 12 June 2013:

1 1

Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire
by Mike O'Connor June 10, 2013

June 10, 2013

hi Ken, "blazing fast" or "lost in the pile of overdue email" -- those are your choices. :-) On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:30 PM, "Ken Bour" <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> wrote: > Mikey: > > Thanks for another blazingly fast response… > > RE: PDP Framework > You mentioned this item several times in your initial comments, but I’ll address it once here. This is an interesting question as to whether the PDP framework itself is so intricately linked to the WG process that it could, on its own merits, influence the overall effectiveness of the WG. If I were to rephrase your inquiry, would this be close: “If the PDP process is cumbersome and difficult to follow, a WG’s Mission could be challenged (if not inhibited) from the outset. If we are intending to evaluate a WG’s effectiveness, one of the issues may be the very subject/content (and attendant processes) it is required to follow, e.g., the PDP framework.” If I’m near the mark, I had not thought about that linkage until you raised it. Most of the WGs I have supported were not PDP-related, so it escaped my attention. I will be interested to see what others have to add on this matter. Another option would be to develop a separate survey-like instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of the PDP Framework itself although, as you point out, it is the WG construct that is asked to navigate those waters. Hmmm… really close on rephrasing my question -- but where i'm coming from is that *this* gang (the SCI) is really charged with evaluating the effectiveness of the process that was put in place as a result of all those committees. so it seems like we need to gather some "is that process effective?" type data in addition to the "was the WG effective?" stuff. so one way to rephrase it would be something like "was there anything in the rules/structure of the PDP that got in the way?" could be something like you described -- where the WG was put at a disadvantage from the start. or it could be something in the middle or end of the PDP rules that caused a problem. this is the "rules committee" type function that the SCI is charged with -- if the rules that our predecessors cooked up are flawed, we're the clean up crew that's supposed to figure out ways to hammer down the last remaining sharp edges. does that help clarify? > > RE: Individual vs. Collective > For consistency (analytical, historical, design), I think we should have one defined process vs. having each WG roll its own. That design constraint would not preclude identifying a couple of overarching questions that we want each WG to address every time (via separate format). Furthermore, it is not inconceivable to have a couple of questions that are addressed both collectively and individually. Then, we could compare both sets of answers to see whether the WG answered similarly or differently from the individuals that made up the team (very intriguing and reminiscent of the Abilene Paradox puzzle). > > RE: Demographics > I agree that private vs. public is complex and there are pros/cons to be weighed. I tend to favor the collection of personal identifying info for the reasons provided, but safeguarding that info in order to promote honesty and candor (still requires trust). Even in a largely volunteer organization, there are some people who will not be comfortable offering what may be perceived as negative commentary unless they can do so under the cover of anonymity. I think it might be cybernetics that advises: in dynamic systems, we learn primarily from error and, if failures go unreported and undiscovered, then those improvement opportunities are forever lost. yep, absolutely right -- i'm pretty likely to be the first recipient of this type of feedback (it seems like i'm chairing all but a few of the current PDPs). and i really want people to feel comfortable with offering candid feedback. so i think i retract that idea of not using anonymous data. swing and a miss. sorry about that. > > RE: Size, Length, Complexity > Hopefully, providing several open-ended text boxes will be generally sufficient for those who have a “lot to say.” I’m not sure that any online survey instrument could be developed that would accommodate the exhaustive and insightful analysis you authored on your experience with the Fast Flux WG. From my recollection, that was and probably will always be remembered as a ONE-OF-A-KIND! J that was indeed a hum-dinger. and you're right, i think this could be addressed with a few open text-boxes. maybe accompanied with an invitation to submit a separate document if it would be easier. back to the anonymity issue too -- i was happy to pen and post a long rant and put my name on it, but some may not. > > RE: Learning Objectives > You are exactly correct. I started by extracting LOs from the WG Guidelines and Charter material; then, I built the questionnaire. Once I got into it, I began seeing that I could fold a couple of topics together (similar content) and ended up with fewer questions. very cool. nicely done. > > Thanks for the input! I am energized by the responses thus far and am looking forward to continuing this process… i think this might be a HUGE long-term help to the process. let's keep at it. thanks, mikey > > Ken > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:27 PM > To: Ken Bour > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN) > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire > > hi Ken, > > i really like the work you've done. i've sprinkled reactions inline, but overall this is a great start. > > thanks, > > mikey > > > On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Ken Bour" <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > SCI Team Members: > > Since our last teleconference, I have been working on the development of a WG Self-Assessment instrument. Rather than inundate the SCI email list with multiple drafts and iterations during the incubation period, I thought it would be more helpful to post my work products to the ICANN Community Wiki. I have now reached a point where I think the material is ready for your review. > > In particular, you will find the following pages under the GNSO tab (category) and Working Group Resources space. Below is the hierarchy including links: > > WG Self-Assessments: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag > > really good introduction. on second reading i realized that one thing that might need expanding in the "lower-level" chunks of work is the LOs and questions that try to tease out the effectiveness of the formally-documented processes (the newly-changed PDP, developed by all the WGs that came before us). not a lot more, but just a bit. i think one of the reactions i had to the first questionnaire was that it was too focused on the formal-process stuff. so there's some balancing to be found. i could certainly live with the balance you've struck in this first pass -- but if there was a graceful way to add just a little more review of the PDP framework, i'd like that too. not too much though. we're going for "just right." :-) > > > · Design Considerations: https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag > > individual vs collective -- i like where you're going in the highlighted box -- some kind of hybrid between the two, maybe up to the WG. if they get really stuck arriving at consensus, just let the discussion serve as documentation rather than trying for consensus. i agree, it would be a shame to run a working group through another tough consensus process at the very end. especially tough if they weren't at consensus on their findings and were reopening old wounds. > > demographic information -- all good -- wisecracks about the NSA notwithstanding. although another approach to consider might be to have the information be public. i don't know -- tradeoffs. something to puzzle about. > > size, complexity, length -- yep, this is where i came into the discussion -- the previous questionnaire was really long/hard to fill out. but it would be interesting to see if there's a way to build in "optional" sections if people had a lot to say. my post-mortem on my experience chairing the Fast Flux WG took several days to write. if somebody's got a will to do something like that, we should provide a way. > > methodology -- no strong opinions either way here. > > > > · Learning Objectives: https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag > > first pass -- WOW! i like these a lot. there may be more, but this is a really good start. good for: starting off the WG to set norms and expectations, periodically referring back to "mid flight" to offer course-corrections to the process as its's going, and reflection on opportunities for improvement at the end. > > since we're a PDP-process focused group, i'm wondering if there's a way to work a couple of LOs in about the framework itself. the goal being to see if there WG members noticed flaws in the process that got in their way. a good source of ideas might be the questionnaire i was so cranky about. i was mostly cranky because it was hard to answer, but maybe there's a way to rework some of those into LO's that fit in here? > > > > · Questionnaire (Draft v1): https://community.icann.org/x/EC1-Ag > > this looks like it flows pretty directly out of the LO's -- so maybe we focus on those first? i really like how the number of LOs is longer than the number of questions -- this looks like a questionnaire that could be filled out pretty quickly. and maybe it's just distributed as a fill-in-blanks PDF or spreadsheet (to make scraping the answers easier)? > > same reactions on the "policy-process" part being a little light, perhaps. not a bunch more questions, but maybe one or two for those reflective types who want a place to note something in the PDP that got in the WG's way? > > > > > If you want to follow my developmental logic path, I suggest starting at the top and proceeding in the sequence shown. If you want to skip to the actual draft questionnaire, it is contained in the bottom linked page. I included a few notes which you should bear in mind before perusing the actual questions. > > At this stage, I would like to receive your feedback before proceeding further to be sure that I am on a productive track. You will certainly notice that this instrument is no longer focused on the WG Guidelines documentation (the original survey scope); instead, on the effectiveness of the WG’s operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. I included my rationale for that shift at the top of the Design Considerations page. > > Feel free to comment on the email list or add comments to the individual Wiki pages. I will attend to both sources over the next week or so as you have time to review and evaluate my recommended approach to the WG Self-Assessment. > > Regards, > > Ken Bour > > >

1 0

Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire
by Ken Bour June 10, 2013

June 10, 2013

SCI Team Members: Since our last teleconference, I have been working on the development of a WG Self-Assessment instrument. Rather than inundate the SCI email list with multiple drafts and iterations during the incubation period, I thought it would be more helpful to post my work products to the ICANN Community Wiki. I have now reached a point where I think the material is ready for your review. In particular, you will find the following pages under the GNSO tab (category) and Working Group Resources space. Below is the hierarchy including links: WG Self-Assessments: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag . Design Considerations: https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag . Learning Objectives: https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag . Questionnaire (Draft v1): https://community.icann.org/x/EC1-Ag If you want to follow my developmental logic path, I suggest starting at the top and proceeding in the sequence shown. If you want to skip to the actual draft questionnaire, it is contained in the bottom linked page. I included a few notes which you should bear in mind before perusing the actual questions. At this stage, I would like to receive your feedback before proceeding further to be sure that I am on a productive track. You will certainly notice that this instrument is no longer focused on the WG Guidelines documentation (the original survey scope); instead, on the effectiveness of the WG's operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. I included my rationale for that shift at the top of the Design Considerations <https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag> page. Feel free to comment on the email list or add comments to the individual Wiki pages. I will attend to both sources over the next week or so as you have time to review and evaluate my recommended approach to the WG Self-Assessment. Regards, Ken Bour

2 2

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal?
by Avri Doria June 10, 2013

June 10, 2013

further: just the GNSO Council/PDP/WGetc Processes and the rules that govern those processes. On 10 Jun 2013, at 10:27, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Policy? Certainly not substantive policy? > > I thought it was questions about the process, aka rules. > We have absolutely nothing to do with ICANN/GNSO Policy as far I know. Just the processes and the rules that govern those processes. > > avri > > > > On 9 Jun 2013, at 21:03, Ron Andruff wrote: > >> Mikey, >> >> With all of the info that has been flowing to you on the list I trust that you now have a clearer understanding of the SCI. One thing is unclear to me however. You continue to refer ro the SCI as a rules committee, which it is nothing of the sort. It has been mandated to review policy matters are referred ro it by Council, or Council chartered Working Groups. I think of the SCI loosely as a sub-committee that brings its conclusions on issues that arise back to the Council, and in fact, to the Community, with a recommendation. The Council takes the recs under advisement and ultimately makes a determinarion. The SCI has looked at one issue that we were asked by Council Chair to review and recommended that no action be taken; rather a review in one year to see if the matter may have resolved itself. >> >> The reason we are revising the SCI charter is to bring it current to the role it fulfills for Council. The SCI has been meeting for three years and functioned well in its service to the Council and greater ICANN Community. Ours is not to determine the fate of the SCI; rather our efforts should be concentrated on updating the charter to reflect the work product the SCI generates. The GNSO Council will determine if there is merit to continuing the work of the SCI or not. That's how ICANN's bottom up process works. No single part can self-determine without Community scrutiny. >> >> Your questions were helpful to bring the Committee's focus to the task at hand. Now we should shift our focus to revising the document we need to fulfill our work. >> >> To that end, I would like to ask Julie to send around the most recently edited charter again to be sure that we all have the base document. I ask for members to please submit your mark ups to the list for Julie to capture. >> >> Thanks to you and the other Committee members for the robust discussion. It has certainly helped deeper conderation of what role the SCI plays in the ICANN solar system for all of us. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> RA >> >> >> >> >> Ron Andruff >> www.lifedotsport.com >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> >> Date: 06/09/2013 16:46 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? >> >> >> Mickey, >> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben brought from the Council to the SCI on 21 December 2012 >> (via email to the SCI list) the request to look at the issue of >> resubmitting a motion as a result of discussions during the Council >> meeting on 20 December. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> On 6/7/13 8:10 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike(a)haven2.com> wrote: >> >>> uh oh. this thread is splitting into separate ones. so i'll just whack >>> the whole thing and start with a blank slate. >>> >>> this is really helpful discussion. i like Ray's historical perspective, >>> Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there >>> and Marika's recap of the task at hand. >>> >>> part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because >>> while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP" >>> topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a >>> stretch from a scope standpoint. >>> >>> i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were >>> asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea >>> to push back on that one a bit. >>> >>> what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing >>> that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of >>> the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that >>> remit and how things get submitted to us for review. we also need make >>> sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident. >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >>> >

1 0

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal?
by Ron Andruff June 9, 2013

June 9, 2013

Mikey, With all of the info that has been flowing to you on the list I trust that you now have a clearer understanding of the SCI. One thing is unclear to me however. You continue to refer ro the SCI as a rules committee, which it is nothing of the sort. It has been mandated to review policy matters are referred ro it by Council, or Council chartered Working Groups. I think of the SCI loosely as a sub-committee that brings its conclusions on issues that arise back to the Council, and in fact, to the Community, with a recommendation. The Council takes the recs under advisement and ultimately makes a determinarion. The SCI has looked at one issue that we were asked by Council Chair to review and recommended that no action be taken; rather a review in one year to see if the matter may have resolved itself. The reason we are revising the SCI charter is to bring it current to the role it fulfills for Council. The SCI has been meeting for three years and functioned well in its service to the Council and greater ICANN Community. Ours is not to determine the fate of the SCI; rather our efforts should be concentrated on updating the charter to reflect the work product the SCI generates. The GNSO Council will determine if there is merit to continuing the work of the SCI or not. That's how ICANN's bottom up process works. No single part can self-determine without Community scrutiny. Your questions were helpful to bring the Committee's focus to the task at hand. Now we should shift our focus to revising the document we need to fulfill our work. To that end, I would like to ask Julie to send around the most recently edited charter again to be sure that we all have the base document. I ask for members to please submit your mark ups to the list for Julie to capture. Thanks to you and the other Committee members for the robust discussion. It has certainly helped deeper conderation of what role the SCI plays in the ICANN solar system for all of us. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: 06/09/2013 16:46 (GMT-05:00) To: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision what is our goal? Mickey, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben brought from the Council to the SCI on 21 December 2012 (via email to the SCI list) the request to look at the issue of resubmitting a motion as a result of discussions during the Council meeting on 20 December. Best regards, Julie On 6/7/13 8:10 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike(a)haven2.com> wrote: >uh oh. this thread is splitting into separate ones. so i'll just whack >the whole thing and start with a blank slate. > >this is really helpful discussion. i like Ray's historical perspective, >Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there >and Marika's recap of the task at hand. > >part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because >while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP" >topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a >stretch from a scope standpoint. > >i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were >asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea >to push back on that one a bit. > >what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing >that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of >the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that >remit and how things get submitted to us for review. we also need make >sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident. > >mikey > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >

1 0

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual
by Ron Andruff June 9, 2013

June 9, 2013

I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. 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 <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-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _____ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> 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.

7 23