August 2013 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

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

FOR REVIEW: Re-Submitting a Motion
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 5, 2013

Sept. 5, 2013

Dear SCI members, Attached for your review is the revised procedure for re-submitting a motion based on the suggestions from the call on 02 July. The changes are included as redlines. It also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/06+August+2013. Note that two of the questions from Marika were addressed, but the remaining question below and in the attached document needs to be discussed. Please send your comments and questions on the list. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Remaining question from Marika: The PDP Manual foresees that 'In the event that the GNSO Council does not approve the initiation of the PDP, not including the possible suspension of further consideration of the Final Issue Report, any Councillor may appeal the denial, and request that the GNSO Council hold a renewed vote on the initiation of the PDP at the next subsequent GNSO Council meeting'. There are no further requirements attached to this 'renewed vote' - would this be considered an exception or would it need to be brought in line with the new requirements if/when approved?

1 3

RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair
by Ron Andruff Sept. 2, 2013

Sept. 2, 2013

Dear all, Welcome Nuno, and thank you for your comments on this thread. I, too, feel that providing more background to the Council would serve both them and the SCI, and have thus drafted a revised letter to Jonathan, which I have attached and pasted below for your review. I have taken into account both Anne and Jennifers comments and hopefully captured that which they, and Wolf-Ulrich, are looking for. Recognizing time is short, I welcome your soonest comments/amendments. Thank you in advance for your soonest response. Kind regards, RA Subject: SCI Charter Revision 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. 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 SCIs 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 Councils 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 members 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 ICANNs inception. Near consensus, provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective stakeholder groups 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 coming to its own determinations. Notably, the SCI does not make any determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council, which, in turn, it 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 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 Nuno Garcia Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 06:03 To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: WUKnoben; Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi all. I'm new do SCI, so I'm still catching up on things. I also agree on the approach proposed by previous emails. I would also like to add something to the discussion: proposals submitted in a full consensus framework are likely to be different from proposals submitted in a WG model framework. This is, if the SCI chooses to change the approval method to the WG model, we can expect different types of subjects being presented. Warm regards, Nuno M. Garcia, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, UBI, Covilhã, Portugal Invited Associate Professor, ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal Av. da Anil, nº 2, 1º Esq. 6200-502 Covilhã Portugal mobile: +351 912 552 009 <tel:%2B351%20912%20552%20009> Skype: nunomgarcia web .................: http://www.di.ubi.pt/~ngarcia research lab .....: http://allab.it.ubi.pt <http://allab.it.ubi.pt/> Cisco Academy : http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt <http://academiacisco.di.ubi.pt/> On 28 August 2013 08:50, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com> > wrote: I agree with Wolf Ulrich and Jennifer regarding this. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Map to Parking Garage <http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lewis+and+Roca+Tucson&gl=us&hl=en&sll=32.2217 62,-110.949424&sspn=0.006295,0.055067&ie=UTF8&view=map&cid=11847041291150279 960&hq=lewis+and+roca+tucson&hnear=&ll=32.221951,-110.971892&spn=0.013524,0. 019205&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A> 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. 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 WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:45 AM To: Jen Wolfe; Ron Andruff; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Id support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council members understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jen Wolfe <mailto:jwolfe@wolfedomain.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM To: Ron Andruff <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> ; 'WUKnoben' <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi everyone, I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am looking forward to our call next week. I agree it is appropriate to send a letter to Jonathan regarding the SCIs position in order to best frame the discussion during the GNSO call. My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt there should or shouldnt be full consensus to help guide the discussion for the Council. For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus was that it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points of view and work to find stronger outcomes. The SCI has the luxury of not working under any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather than substantive issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the group more time to really find a better outcome. On the flip side, I believe the argument 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. This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned that if we dont provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon our meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent discussing this issue. I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI. With kindest regards, Jennifer jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe> <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/> <https://twitter.com/jenwolfe> Follow My Blog <http://www.jenwolfe.com/blog> Domain Names Rewired <http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312 627> 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:[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM To: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Dear All, Based upon Wolf-Ulrichs comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) Annes contribution. Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter 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 Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council 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 August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the full consensus process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Thank you. 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> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The historical information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself the SCI as an ongoing working institution was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ 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.

2 2

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role
by WUKnoben Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

I’d support this approach. It would be very helpful for the council members’ understanding of the issue as well as facilitate the council discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:32 PM To: Ron Andruff ; 'WUKnoben' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Hi everyone, I hope you have had a great remainder of summer since Durban and am looking forward to our call next week. I agree it is appropriate to send a letter to Jonathan regarding the SCI’s position in order to best frame the discussion during the GNSO call. My only suggestion would be to provide some rationale for why members felt there should or shouldn’t be full consensus to help guide the discussion for the Council. For example, I recall the rationale for full consensus was that it ensured the group would dedicate the time to explore all points of view and work to find stronger outcomes. The SCI has the luxury of not working under any time constraints on procedural and process issues rather than substantive issues and thus the full consensus requirement gave the group more time to really find a better outcome. On the flip side, I believe the argument 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. This may be too much to accomplish by our next meeting, but I am concerned that if we don’t provide at least a framework for the discussion based upon our meetings, then the Council does not benefit from the time we spent discussing this issue. I look forward to our next call and continuing the work on the SCI. With kindest regards, Jennifer jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual property law firm IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011 & 2012 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:59 AM To: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role Dear All, Based upon Wolf-Ulrich’s comments regarding the upcoming discussion on the next Council call regarding the SCI Charter, I have revised the letter discussed on our last call to provide the SCI input into that discussion. The letter is noted below for your review. It also includes (in blue text) Anne’s contribution. Unless I hear strong opposition to this way forward, I will send the letter to Jonathan on Monday, Sept. 2nd. Subject: GNSO Council Durban Sessions and SCI Charter 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 Wrap-up Session in Durban and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council 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 August 6th meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council. In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the “full consensus” process is beneficial for a group of this type. The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Kind regards, Ron Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 04:36 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI role All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The “historical” information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method – WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself – the SCI as an ongoing working institution – was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 2

SCI role
by WUKnoben Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

All. the GNSO council at its next meeting on Sep 05 shall discuss the SCI role as intended from the Durban meeting. The “historical” information to be provided by Jeff Newman is still pending but seems to be important for the understanding of where the SCI comes from. If the SCI wants to submit some input to this discussion the SCI meeting on Sep 04 seems to be too close to the council meeting in order to prepare some statement. In this case we should start immediately on the list. To my understanding the only item still open is about the working method – WG model or full consensus. In my view a statement outlining the pros and cons would be helpful. The role itself – the SCI as an ongoing working institution – was not objected by the council. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

FYI
by WUKnoben Aug. 19, 2013

Aug. 19, 2013

Look at gnso.icann.org/en/ where Jonathan made reference to the SCI role Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test
by Ken Bour Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

SCI Members: As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey's inquiry. Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that we move to the next phase as soon as practicable. I agree with Mikey's observation that there is an advantage to being "done" with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is no other reasonable course of action available. If the "Thick WHOIS" WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter and the questionnaire for another team. Regards, Ken Bour From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; 'Ken Bour' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test thanks all, this looks great. here's a choice for you. i could either forward this *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap up well before Argentina). the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner. the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan. i'm very much on the fence. either way would be fine with me. Avri, you're in that WG. i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here. mikey On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> wrote: Dear Mikey, As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: <http://thickwhois.questionpro.com> http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: <https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag> https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at <mailto:ken.bour@verizon.net> ken.bour(a)verizon.net. In particular, we are interested in learning: . Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? . Are the design and format straightforward? . Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? . Are the instructions clear? . Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? . Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? . Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

6 7

FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

Dear SCI members, As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter. Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message. No comments will be understood as agreement with the email¹s contents. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------ Begin Draft Message --------------------------------------- Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter Dear Jonathan, I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July. At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter. In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role. Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council 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. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process based on feedback received from the Council. However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly. In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible for the GNSO Council to consider for approval at its meeting in September. The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate. We await your guidance. Best regards, Ron Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

5 6

Working Group Self-Assessment Test
by Ron Andruff Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

Dear Mikey, As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we are calling "Working Group Self-Assessment." Delving back into the history of the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements. As the Chair of the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, we appreciate your willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week timeframe to complete it. Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if needed by any of your team members. It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as though it were a real self-assessment for the "Thick WHOIS" Working Group, despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested. How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members' experiences - not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a separate page in the "Thick WHOIS" ICANN Wiki space (Link: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour(a)verizon.net <mailto:ken.bour@verizon.net> . In particular, we are interested in learning: * Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to intent? * Are the design and format straightforward? * Does the scaling (1-7) make sense? * Are the instructions clear? * Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete? * Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes? * Are there any important elements of the Working Group's operations that have been neglected? Thank you in advance for your WG's involvement in testing this assessment instrument. Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com>

2 1

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