September 2013 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Re: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 10, 2013

Sept. 10, 2013

Hi Anne, I have copied the GNSO Secretariat staff so that they can be in touch with Greg to add him to the list and make sure he has the information to join the call. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:25 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org>, "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> Subject: RE: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Thanks Julie. As an update, IPC has appointed Greg Shatan as IPC alternate to the SCI. Greg is copied on this e-mail. I do not know whether he can participate in today¹s call or not, but please make sure Greg has access to the adobe room and the call. ( I did forward the phone number and the adobe link to him during our IPC call this morning.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:42 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Dear SCI members, Here are the links to the transcript and the chat transcript from the GNSO Council meeting held on 05 September. Please see the discussion beginning on page 92 concerning the SCI role and charter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben may also wish to share his thoughts on the discussion. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-05sep13-en.pdf Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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 1

Re: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 10, 2013

Sept. 10, 2013

Hi Anne, Yes, I will do that. Thanks, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:34 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org>, "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> Cc: "gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Thanks Julie, could you also please forward to Greg the most recent proposal in the language related to Resubmission of a Motion. Greg and I are aware that SCI is looking for our IPC comments on Item No. 3 , requiring a second from both houses, today. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:32 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org; 'Shatan, Gregory S.' Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Re: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Hi Anne, I have copied the GNSO Secretariat staff so that they can be in touch with Greg to add him to the list and make sure he has the information to join the call. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:25 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org>, "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan(a)reedsmith.com> Subject: RE: GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Thanks Julie. As an update, IPC has appointed Greg Shatan as IPC alternate to the SCI. Greg is copied on this e-mail. I do not know whether he can participate in today¹s call or not, but please make sure Greg has access to the adobe room and the call. ( I did forward the phone number and the adobe link to him during our IPC call this morning.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | Suite 700 One South Church Avenue | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> Lewis and Roca LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:42 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO Council Meeting Transcript: Charter Discussion Dear SCI members, Here are the links to the transcript and the chat transcript from the GNSO Council meeting held on 05 September. Please see the discussion beginning on page 92 concerning the SCI role and charter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben may also wish to share his thoughts on the discussion. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-05sep13-en.pdf Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments 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.

1 0

RE: SCI Charter Revisions
by Ron Andruff Sept. 10, 2013

Sept. 10, 2013

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 <http://www.rnapartners.com> 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 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>

1 0

Fw: [council] RE: SCI Charter Revisions
by WUKnoben Sept. 10, 2013

Sept. 10, 2013

See the outcome of the related discussion at the council meeting last week as input for the SCI call later today. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Jonathan Robinson Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:29 AM To: 'Ron Andruff' Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] 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 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; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)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

1 0

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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair
by Ron Andruff Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Dear Anne, No work will go to waste. For the benenfit of those new to the SCI, to kick off the Charter revision a small sub-group was formed to bring some revisions to the larger group. Then there came the question from another member who had recently joined, if we should be 'sunsetting' the SCI, or if it was indeed an open-ended standing committee. That series of events has brought us to here, where the GNSO Council now has to make the determination as to which body should do the Charter revision work. As Vice Chair of the Council, Wolf-Ulrich has signaled that this is work that Council would rather not take on BUT that is their decision as the chartering organization. In a few days we will know more. I hope that this helps put this discussion into context for all. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> Date: 09/04/2013 00:27 (GMT+01:00) To: 'Ron Andruff' <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> Cc: 'WUKnoben' <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>,gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Thanks Ron. I had no idea there was an issue in play as to whether or not we submit a new draft Charter to the GNSO. This seems like a change in approach since we had in fact commissioned the smaller sub-team to revise the Charter some months ago. Now I think you are saying we need to ask the GNSO whether they want to do the work themselves. I don’t have a strong opinion on this except to say that work was done by the sub-group and that work goes to waste if not shared. Anne From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 12:51 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: 'WUKnoben'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Anne, I understand your concern, but it is clear that the Council supports our desire to have a new Charter, and Wolf-Ulrich (as V Chair of Council) notes that they do not wish to take on the work, but the GNSO Council is our chartering organization so I feel that it is their choice as to how we proceed. I expect that we will know that direction following their meeting this week. In any case, should the Council choose to do this work on their side, we have enough work to do in the meantime. 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 14:19 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Nuno Garcia' Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair Ron, the letter seems good except that it appears to me SCI can work on the Charter revisions, which are almost done as I understand it, without waiting for the GNSO to determine where it stands on the full consensus issue. The last paragraph seems to imply that SCI will wait to do this work until after GNSO advises the appropriate level of consensus for SCI. I personally do not see why we would wait on this. We can leave this section open in the revised Charter. I would expect discussion beyond the upcoming Council meeting on the consensus issue and I am loathe to stop our Charter revision work when it is clear that GNSO wants SCI to continue and there is no dispute on this point. Thank you, 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 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman(a)LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02 AM To: 'Nuno Garcia'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: 'WUKnoben'; 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: RE: Revised Letter to GNSO Council Chair 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 Jennifer’s 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

1 0

Proposed Agenda for 10 September SCI Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 3, 2013

Sept. 3, 2013

Dear SCI members, Below for your review is a proposed agenda for the SCI meeting on 10 September. Please let me know of any changes. This also is posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/10+September+2013. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll call (1 min) 2. Statements of Interest (2 min) 3. Approval of the agenda (2 min) 4. Re-submitting a motion (10 mins) 5. SCI charter revision (20 mins) 6. Working Group self assessment (10 mins) 7. New Work Items from GNSO Council: Voting by email and the possible inclusion of a waiver/exception in the GNSO Operating Procedures (15 mins) 8. AOB (5 mins)

1 0

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

SCI Charter Revisions
by Ron Andruff Sept. 2, 2013

Sept. 2, 2013

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 1