July 2015 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

For Discussion: Amendments to Motions
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

Dear SCI members, On today's call the SCI began a discussion concerning whether the informal GNSO Council customs relating to amendments to motions should be incorporated in the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if so, in what form. For background on the issue, please see the attached Review Request. Here is a brief summary of the points raised in the discussion. I've included the relevant discussion from the Chat Room below and the transcript will be circulated separately. I would be grateful to those who were in the meeting to let me know whether there were any points I missed and whether there is additional information to inform this discussion. Key Points: * The GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain any guidance concerning amendments of any sort, or define "friendly" and "unfriendly". There also is no guidance on seconding motions. * The current informal custom is that the person who proposes a motion decides whether an amendment is friendly or not. (See the attached Review Request for a full description of the current practice.) * Roberts Rules of Order treat amendments as neutral (neither friendly or unfriendly). * The current informal custom in the Council is that if an amendment is deemed unfriendly then a vote is held on the motion (threshold: simply majority). * Voting on amendments is standard outside of the GNSO/ICANN community. * Timing of the submission of amendments has been problematic, sometimes not allowing time for consultation with constituencies and stakeholder groups. The SCI members on the call today decided that discussion on this issue should continue on the list and at the next meeting. In particular, members should consider whether the GNSO Operating Procedures should be revised to include specific procedures on amendments. Possible procedures to include could be: > * Timing of submission of amendments; > * Defining "friendly" and "unfriendly"; > * When and how votes on amendments are conducted; and > * When and how amendments are seconded. Please send any comments in response to this message as the start of the discussion thread. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Chat Room: Lori Schulman:Are "friendly" and "unfriendly" defined in the GNSO procedures. Julie Hedlund:@Lori: No, there is nothing in the Procedures addressing amendments of either kind. Lori Schulman:Without a definition, how do we delineate a procdure? Julie Hedlund:@Lori: We would have to consider whether to incorporate a definition in the addition to the procedures. We could probably use Roberts Rules of Order as a guide. ken stubbs - afilias:15 years ago for me (joined council) ken stubbs - afilias:+1 avri Amr Elsadr:@Avri: In BA, council also voted on whether to accept the amended language before voting on the motion. Avri Doria:under the tradion on the maker of the motion and seconder get to decide if it is friendly. rudi issue is the crix of the issue on friendly motions. who owns changing it? Lori Schulman:I tend to agree with Roberts. Amendments should be agnostic. Lori Schulman:neither friendly nor unfriendly. Mary Wong:The consequence of characterizing a proposed amendment as friendly or not is whether or not the Council will then first need to vote on the proposed amendment (whether to accept it) Mary Wong:Again, it's Council custom - first vote on amendment if considered unfriendly Mary Wong:Needs majority to add the amendment to the original motion Avri Doria:voting on amendments is the standard even in the real world. Lori Schulman:yup Julie Hedlund:@Avri: You mean we aren't in the real world ;-) Mary Wong:Yup just pointing out the consequence Lori Schulman:+1 to Avri's comment about the "real" world. Avri Doria:Julie, you tell me. I can't ever tell for sure. Julie Hedlund:@Avri: Then we are both lost since I'm not sure either :-) Rudi Vansnick:"friendly" is to me a personal (human) perception not procedural Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Yes..., which is why it is highly subjective. Avri Doria:i have to chair a IGF type meeting on the hour so will drop off at around xx58 Angie Graves:I agree with Amr. Are we working against an agreed-upon definition of "friendly"? Avri Doria:for a bit of history, when i first becasme GNSO chair in antiquity, i tried to get rid of the whole friendly ammendment thing. at that time i was told to leave it alone. now, after all these years i have grown accustomed to it. Amr Elsadr:I wouldn't try to define friendly here. Amr Elsadr:Seems unnecessary to me. Angie Graves:Me neither. Just wondering if one exists. ken stubbs:sorry.. wifi wnt down for a few min Amr Elsadr:@Angie: I think you're friendly. Does that count? ;-) Angie Graves:hehe Angie Graves:me too you! Avri Doria:continue to discuss on list? Lori Schulman:I think that if you want to codify rules around friendly amendments then you need to define them Amr Elsadr:@Avri: +1 Angie Graves:Thanks, Avri ken stubbs:awareness needs to be made at council level before we move much further Avri Doria:some mornig i wake up and know i am not going to be all that friendly that day. Amr Elsadr:@Lori: I only meant that if we work out and suggest codified rules, those will determine how friendly amendments may be submitted and accepted without us having to define it now. That's all. Lori Schulman:Amr: got it.

2 1

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Next SCI Call: Schedule for 03 September
by Julie Hedlund July 29, 2015

July 29, 2015

Dear SCI members, I have seen no objections to scheduling the next call for Thursday 03 September, although a couple of members said they would be available in August if necessary. Thus, the GNSO Secretariat will go ahead and put the call on the schedule for 03 September. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:21 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Cc: GNSO Secretariat <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Next SCI Call: Schedule for 03 September > Dear SCI members, > > At the end of today's SCI call there was discussion concerning when the next > call should be scheduled. Several members pointed out that since August is > typically the month for holidays/vacations, if we keep to our usual schedule > of a meeting every two weeks (which would be 06 and 20 August) we may end up > canceling calls if there are few attendees. Thus, members suggested that it > was preferable to schedule the call on Thursday, 03 September and to continue > discussion of the issues on the list (for which I'll start two discussion > threads). > > If there are no objections the GNSO Secretariat will make arrangements to > place the next call on the calendar for Thursday, 03 September at the usual > time of 1800 UTC. > > Best regards, > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >

1 0

Next SCI Call: Schedule for 03 September
by Julie Hedlund July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Dear SCI members, At the end of today's SCI call there was discussion concerning when the next call should be scheduled. Several members pointed out that since August is typically the month for holidays/vacations, if we keep to our usual schedule of a meeting every two weeks (which would be 06 and 20 August) we may end up canceling calls if there are few attendees. Thus, members suggested that it was preferable to schedule the call on Thursday, 03 September and to continue discussion of the issues on the list (for which I'll start two discussion threads). If there are no objections the GNSO Secretariat will make arrangements to place the next call on the calendar for Thursday, 03 September at the usual time of 1800 UTC. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

5 4

For Review: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
by Julie Hedlund July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

Dear SCI members, The SCI members on the call on 23 July (Avri Doria, Amr Elsadr, Angie Graves, Lori Schulman, Ken Stubbs, and Rudi Vansnick (Vice Chair)) discussed the issue of whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for submitting motions should apply to resubmitted motions. After some discussion there was consensus of the members on the call with the suggestion from Wolf-Ulrich Knoben on the list that the SCI should not recommend a change to the GNSO Operating Procedures at this time with respect to this issue. However, they agreed that the SCI should send a response to the Council emphasizing that after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures it is clear that the waiver of the 10-day deadline for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted motions. The SCI also could note in its response that although changes are not recommended at this time, the SCI could revisit the issue if requested by the Council and, specifically, if there is a contentious issue that warrants it. The SCI members on the call also agreed that it would be better not to send the response to the GNSO Council until the SCI has decided how to address the second issue, which concerns the current informal customs relating to amendments to motions. This would enable the SCI to send its recommendations concerning both issues to the Council at the same time. Please indicate on the list whether you agree with this approach, particularly those SCI members who were not on the call on 23 July. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 23 July 2015
by Terri Agnew July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday, 23 July 2015: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-23jul15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jul (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Rudi Vansnick - NPOC - Primary Amr Elsadr - NCUC - Primary Avri Doria - NCSG - Primary Lori Schulman - IPC - Alternate Angie Graves - BC - Primary Ken Stubbs - RySG - Primary Apologies: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary Jennifer Standiford - RrSG - Primary Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary - Chair ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Chat Transcript 23 July 2015 Terri Agnew:Dear all, welcome to the SCI call on the 23rd July 2015 Lori Schulman:Hello. Rudi Vansnick:hi Lori Amr Elsadr:May the document on the screen please by desynched? Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Julie Hedlund:@Amr -- Done! ken stubbs - afilias:thank you ! Amr Elsadr:It looks like the chat window may be covering the window showing participants. Can this please be fixed? Julie Hedlund:@Amr, it isn't showing that way for me. I will try to change it thought. Julie Hedlund:I tried moving the chat window down a bit. Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Looks like it's fixed on my end. Maybe I was just imagining it. Amr Elsadr::) Julie Hedlund:Well, it is Adobe Connect, so who knows ;-) Lori Schulman:can you hear me? Julie Hedlund:We can't hear you Lori. Terri Agnew:@Lori, no, you need to active your mic Julie Hedlund:Loud and clear Lori! Julie Hedlund:@Lori, I don't think that there was consensus. Avri Doria:right in the past we had consensu on creating the rule in the first place. Avri Doria:but as Amr is explain this is a theoretical emergent edge case. Avri Doria:the reason i gave for not doing so is tha reason for the 10 day rule - emergencies. on a resubmission i do not see what the emergency might be. Amr Elsadr:@Julie: That's fine by me. Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Yes, of course. Didn't mean anything by it. Just wanted to point it out. Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: I'm sorry..., could you clarify what you want us to agree on? Amr Elsadr:@Julie: Sure. Thanks. Amr Elsadr:Thanks Julie. Sounds fine by me. Avri Doria:Rudi, are you just on AC, if so, it has been bouncing up and own for days now. Avri Doria:.. up and down ... Rudi Vansnick:@Avri yes Avri i was on AC only Lori Schulman:Are "friendly" and "unfriendly" defined in the GNSO procedures. Julie Hedlund:@Lori: No, there is nothing in the Procedures addressing amendments of either kind. Lori Schulman:Without a definition, how do we delineate a procdure? Julie Hedlund:@Lori: We would have to consider whether to incorporate a definition in the addition to the procedures. We could probably use Roberts Rules of Order as a guide. ken stubbs - afilias:15 years ago for me (joined council) ken stubbs - afilias:+1 avri Amr Elsadr:@Avri: In BA, council also voted on whether to accept the amended language before voting on the motion. Avri Doria:under the tradion on the maker of the motion and seconder get to decide if it is friendly. rudi issue is the crix of the issue on friendly motions. who owns changing it? Lori Schulman:I tend to agree with Roberts. Amendments should be agnostic. Lori Schulman:neither friendly nor unfriendly. Mary Wong:The consequence of characterizing a proposed amendment as friendly or not is whether or not the Council will then first need to vote on the proposed amendment (whether to accept it) Mary Wong:Again, it's Council custom - first vote on amendment if considered unfriendly Mary Wong:Needs majority to add the amendment to the original motion Avri Doria:voting on amendments is the standard even in the real world. Lori Schulman:yup Julie Hedlund:@Avri: You mean we aren't in the real world ;-) Mary Wong:Yup just pointing out the consequence Lori Schulman:+1 to Avri's comment about the "real" world. Avri Doria:Julie, you tell me. I can't ever tell for sure. Julie Hedlund:@Avri: Then we are both lost since I'm not sure either :-) Rudi Vansnick:"friendly" is to me a personal (human) perception not procedural Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Yes..., which is why it is highly subjective. Avri Doria:i have to chair a IGF type meeting on the hour so will drop off at around xx58 Angie Graves:I agree with Amr. Are we working against an agreed-upon definition of "friendly"? Avri Doria:for a bit of history, when i first becasme GNSO chair in antiquity, i tried to get rid of the whole friendly ammendment thing. at that time i was told to leave it alone. now, after all these years i have grown accustomed to it. Amr Elsadr:I wouldn't try to define friendly here. Amr Elsadr:Seems unnecessary to me. Angie Graves:Me neither. Just wondering if one exists. ken stubbs:sorry.. wifi wnt down for a few min Amr Elsadr:@Angie: I think you're friendly. Does that count? ;-) Angie Graves:hehe Angie Graves:me too you! Avri Doria:continue to discuss on list? Lori Schulman:I think that if you want to codify rules around friendly amendments then you need to define them Amr Elsadr:@Avri: +1 Angie Graves:Thanks, Avri ken stubbs:awareness needs to be made at council level before we move much further Avri Doria:some mornig i wake up and know i am not going to be all that friendly that day. ken stubbs:vacatiuons coming up Lori Schulman:I vote September Lori Schulman:Too many vacations ken stubbs:+1 september Avri Doria:September is good. Amr Elsadr:@Lori: I only meant that if we work out and suggest codified rules, those will determine how friendly amendments may be submitted and accepted without us having to define it now. That's all. Lori Schulman:Amr: got it. Avri Doria:can we include Spetember as one of the doodle choices? Mary Wong:Just schedule for the 6th and cancel if you have too many apolgies? ken stubbs:1st wk in sept is best Lori Schulman:I like Mary's approach. ken stubbs:pass on the 6th Lori Schulman:Top down but practical Avri Doria:bye all. Amr Elsadr:I would also prefer to wait until September. ken stubbs:majority have suggested september Amr Elsadr:#September ken stubbs:serious trending .. majority of parties on the call favor sept Lori Schulman:LOL ken stubbs:good bye folks Julie Hedlund:Bye everyone and thanks! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Lori Schulman:Bye. Happy Summer! Mary Wong:Thanks all Angie Graves:Thanks!

1 0

SCI meeting agenda Thursday 23 July 18:00 UTC
by Rudi Vansnick July 22, 2015

July 22, 2015

Dear SCI members, Our next call scheduled for Thursday 23 July at 18:00 UTC would focus on 2 items based on the discussions we already had in Buenos Aires : 1. application of the 10-day waiver rule to resubmitted motions; 2. GNSO Operating Procedures with regard to friendly amendments to motions. When reading through transcripts of previous calls (and especially the one from our BA meeting), the language we need to validate is the one between the brackets as is shown below. If we consider this is not the case, I would like to get clearance on this during our call tomorrow. "If these requirements are not met, the motion shall not be considered submitted for the next Council meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if the motion is proposed again for a subsequent Council meeting, it shall not be considered a resubmitted motion under the rules for Resubmission of a Motion in these Operating Procedures. [Resubmitted motions made pursuant to Section 4.3.3 of these Operating Procedures after the Submission Deadline must meet these requirements in addition to those detailed in Section 4.3.3 in order to be eligible for consideration by the GNSO Council under this Section 3.3.2.]" If I’m not wrong we had two proposals : waiving the 10 day rule or NOT waiving the 10 day rule. Maybe this is a bit to simple, but as far as I could distinct from the discussions in BA this is the point we had not reached consensus. So perhaps we could start the discussion tomorrow on this level. Of course, open to any other proposal, and looking forward to our meeting tomorrow. Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/> Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick(a)npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick@npoc.org> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

2 1

SCI - next call
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Dear SCI Members, We should be setting up our call schedule and continuing our discussion of (1) application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmitted motions and (2) GNSO Operating Procedures with regard to friendly amendments to motions. You may have all noticed that the friendly amendment issue arose in the GNSO Council public meeting in BA in connection with the motion regarding the Issues Report for a next round of gTLDs. With respect to the application of the 10-day waiver rule to resubmitted motions, Rudi had a very good idea to ask Amr and Avri respectively to lay out their positions on the list "Pro" (Amr) and "Con"(Avri). Rudi also provided some informal thoughts after our meeting in BA which I encourage him to share on the list in response to this message. Thursday July 9 is a possible call date. July 16 could pose problems for those on CCWG - Accountability who will be traveling to Paris. Personally I am unavailable July 23 but Rudi may be able to chair. Please advise your preference. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 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> ________________________________ 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.

8 15