September 2015 - Gnso-improvem-impl-sc

Consensus Call Complete: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Dear SCI members, The Consensus Call is complete and there is full consensus to send the letter. As noted below if there are no objections or changes received by the deadline (29 September 2015) -- and there were none -- the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. I have attached the letter and the original request for reference and for transmission to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair. 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: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 1:51 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions > Dear SCI members, > > This is a reminder that the consensus call described below ends at COB today, > 29 September 2015. As noted below, if there are no objections or changes > received by the deadline, the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full > consensus. > > Kind 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: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:40 AM > To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion > Deadline and Resubmission of Motions > >> Dear SCI members, >> >> As discussed during the SCI call last week on 17 September, please see below >> the proposed letter from the SCI to the GNSO Council on the issue of the >> waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of motions. >> >> This is a consensus call. >> >> Please indicate your agreement with, or objection to, the proposed letter. >> If there are no objections or changes received by COB Tuesday, 29 September >> 2015, the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. >> >> Kind regards, >> Julie >> >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> >> ------------------------ >> >> Dear Jonathan, >> >> >> >> On 05 March 2015 the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) >> submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) on the issue of >> whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for the submission of motions can >> be applied to resubmitted motions. The Review Request was one of two that >> the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The SCI is continuing >> to discuss the other Review Request from the Council for the SCI to consider >> codifying the current informal procedure for amendments to motions and to >> recommend any changes SCI believes (through full consensus) are appropriate. >> >> >> >> The SCI has determined after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures that >> by its terms as previously approved by Council, the waiver of the 10-day >> deadline for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted motions. >> Further, after lengthy discussion of the possible issues, the SCI is >> reluctant to make any recommendations to change the current status of the >> Operating Procedures given that no instance of a problem arising in this >> regard has occurred. The SCI also notes that although changes to the GNSO >> Operating Procedures 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 further analysis. >> >> >> >> Please let us know whether you or the Council have any questions or require >> further information concerning the SCI's response to this issue request. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Anne and Rudi >> >> >> >> Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair >> >> Rudi Vansnick, SCI Vice-Chair

1 0

DOCUMENTING THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS - YOUR INPUT NEEDED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 8 CALL of SCI
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 30, 2015

Sept. 30, 2015

Dear SCI MEMBERS - Your input and discussion on the list are needed with respect to the document Marika has just resent prior to the October 8 call of the SCI. This is a draft description of the current process in GNSO Council of the handling of friendly amendments to motion. This summary, once refined in our October 8 call, will be presented to Council as part of our report in Dublin. PLEASE TAKE TIME TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE DRAFT FORWARDED TODAY (AND PREVIOUSLY ON SEPT 17) by MARIKA. This is sent in a format that can be redlined with your suggested changes. Your input is especially crucial if you are now or have ever been a Council member. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F9EC.F6529630] 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/> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 11:41 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions Anne, please find attached the email with an attachment that includes an outline of the current procedure for friendly amendments that was sent to the SCI on 17 September. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Monday 28 September 2015 12:29 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions Many thanks Julie. We understand the consensus call is open until COB TUESDAY September 29 - THAT IS TOMORROW and failure to object is considered consensus (as in the past.) We prefer a positive confirmation of consensus for our records so please - WILL ALL MEMBERS RESPOND BY TUESDAY? Separately, JULIE, we also do need to have posted to the list the description of the current procedure for "friendly amendments" - draft prepared by Mary - so that those on the list can review and add any redline comments they have based on their experience on Council. This is about DOCUMENTING the existing procedure - not about discussing or recommending changes to it. For those not present on the call, we are going to finalize a version of what we think the current procedures are and present that to Council for consideration in Dublin as part of our report. (many thanks to Marika for reminding us there are two steps to this exercise that are "in scope" for SCI.) Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F9EC.F6529630] 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/> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:41 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions Importance: High Dear SCI members, As discussed during the SCI call last week on 17 September, please see below the proposed letter from the SCI to the GNSO Council on the issue of the waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of motions. This is a consensus call. Please indicate your agreement with, or objection to, the proposed letter. If there are no objections or changes received by COB Tuesday, 29 September 2015, the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------------ Dear Jonathan, On 05 March 2015 the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) on the issue of whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for the submission of motions can be applied to resubmitted motions. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The SCI is continuing to discuss the other Review Request from the Council for the SCI to consider codifying the current informal procedure for amendments to motions and to recommend any changes SCI believes (through full consensus) are appropriate. The SCI has determined after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures that by its terms as previously approved by Council, the waiver of the 10-day deadline for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted motions. Further, after lengthy discussion of the possible issues, the SCI is reluctant to make any recommendations to change the current status of the Operating Procedures given that no instance of a problem arising in this regard has occurred. The SCI also notes that although changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures 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 further analysis. Please let us know whether you or the Council have any questions or require further information concerning the SCI's response to this issue request. Best regards, Anne and Rudi Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair Rudi Vansnick, SCI Vice-Chair ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

3 2

REMINDER: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 29, 2015

Sept. 29, 2015

Dear SCI members, This is a reminder that the consensus call described below ends at COB today, 29 September 2015. As noted below, if there are no objections or changes received by the deadline, the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. Kind 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: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:40 AM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions > Dear SCI members, > > As discussed during the SCI call last week on 17 September, please see below > the proposed letter from the SCI to the GNSO Council on the issue of the > waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of motions. > > This is a consensus call. > > Please indicate your agreement with, or objection to, the proposed letter. If > there are no objections or changes received by COB Tuesday, 29 September 2015, > the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. > > Kind regards, > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > ------------------------ > > Dear Jonathan, > > > > On 05 March 2015 the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) > submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) on the issue of > whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for the submission of motions can be > applied to resubmitted motions. The Review Request was one of two that the > Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The SCI is continuing to > discuss the other Review Request from the Council for the SCI to consider > codifying the current informal procedure for amendments to motions and to > recommend any changes SCI believes (through full consensus) are appropriate. > > > > The SCI has determined after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures that by > its terms as previously approved by Council, the waiver of the 10-day deadline > for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted motions. Further, > after lengthy discussion of the possible issues, the SCI is reluctant to make > any recommendations to change the current status of the Operating Procedures > given that no instance of a problem arising in this regard has occurred. The > SCI also notes that although changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures 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 > further analysis. > > > > Please let us know whether you or the Council have any questions or require > further information concerning the SCI's response to this issue request. > > > > Best regards, > > Anne and Rudi > > > > Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair > > Rudi Vansnick, SCI Vice-Chair

3 2

Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Dear SCI members, As discussed during the SCI call last week on 17 September, please see below the proposed letter from the SCI to the GNSO Council on the issue of the waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of motions. This is a consensus call. Please indicate your agreement with, or objection to, the proposed letter. If there are no objections or changes received by COB Tuesday, 29 September 2015, the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------------ Dear Jonathan, On 05 March 2015 the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) on the issue of whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for the submission of motions can be applied to resubmitted motions. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The SCI is continuing to discuss the other Review Request from the Council for the SCI to consider codifying the current informal procedure for amendments to motions and to recommend any changes SCI believes (through full consensus) are appropriate. The SCI has determined after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures that by its terms as previously approved by Council, the waiver of the 10-day deadline for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted motions. Further, after lengthy discussion of the possible issues, the SCI is reluctant to make any recommendations to change the current status of the Operating Procedures given that no instance of a problem arising in this regard has occurred. The SCI also notes that although changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures 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 further analysis. Please let us know whether you or the Council have any questions or require further information concerning the SCI's response to this issue request. Best regards, Anne and Rudi Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair Rudi Vansnick, SCI Vice-Chair

4 5

DOCUMENTING CURRENT PROCEDURE FOR FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS TO MOTION IN COUNSEL
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Thanks Julie - not sure how I missed this. Could you please send this as a Word doc attachment that is easily redlined? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F9E3.2E724EC0] 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/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 11:42 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions Anne, Marika sent to the list on 17 September the description provided by Mary of the current procedure for friendly amendments. It was documented as part of the original request. I will resend that message. Best regards, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 2:29 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions Many thanks Julie. We understand the consensus call is open until COB TUESDAY September 29 - THAT IS TOMORROW and failure to object is considered consensus (as in the past.) We prefer a positive confirmation of consensus for our records so please - WILL ALL MEMBERS RESPOND BY TUESDAY? Separately, JULIE, we also do need to have posted to the list the description of the current procedure for "friendly amendments" - draft prepared by Mary - so that those on the list can review and add any redline comments they have based on their experience on Council. This is about DOCUMENTING the existing procedure - not about discussing or recommending changes to it. For those not present on the call, we are going to finalize a version of what we think the current procedures are and present that to Council for consideration in Dublin as part of our report. (many thanks to Marika for reminding us there are two steps to this exercise that are "in scope" for SCI.) Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F9E3.2E724EC0] 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/> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:41 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions Importance: High Dear SCI members, As discussed during the SCI call last week on 17 September, please see below the proposed letter from the SCI to the GNSO Council on the issue of the waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of motions. This is a consensus call. Please indicate your agreement with, or objection to, the proposed letter. If there are no objections or changes received by COB Tuesday, 29 September 2015, the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------------ Dear Jonathan, On 05 March 2015 the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) on the issue of whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for the submission of motions can be applied to resubmitted motions. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The SCI is continuing to discuss the other Review Request from the Council for the SCI to consider codifying the current informal procedure for amendments to motions and to recommend any changes SCI believes (through full consensus) are appropriate. The SCI has determined after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures that by its terms as previously approved by Council, the waiver of the 10-day deadline for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted motions. Further, after lengthy discussion of the possible issues, the SCI is reluctant to make any recommendations to change the current status of the Operating Procedures given that no instance of a problem arising in this regard has occurred. The SCI also notes that although changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures 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 further analysis. Please let us know whether you or the Council have any questions or require further information concerning the SCI's response to this issue request. Best regards, Anne and Rudi Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair Rudi Vansnick, SCI Vice-Chair ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

2 1

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
by Marika Konings Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Anne, please find attached the email with an attachment that includes an outline of the current procedure for friendly amendments that was sent to the SCI on 17 September. Best regards, Marika From: <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Monday 28 September 2015 12:29 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions Many thanks Julie. We understand the consensus call is open until COB TUESDAY September 29 – THAT IS TOMORROW and failure to object is considered consensus (as in the past.) We prefer a positive confirmation of consensus for our records so please - WILL ALL MEMBERS RESPOND BY TUESDAY? Separately, JULIE, we also do need to have posted to the list the description of the current procedure for “friendly amendments” – draft prepared by Mary – so that those on the list can review and add any redline comments they have based on their experience on Council. This is about DOCUMENTING the existing procedure – not about discussing or recommending changes to it. For those not present on the call, we are going to finalize a version of what we think the current procedures are and present that to Council for consideration in Dublin as part of our report. (many thanks to Marika for reminding us there are two steps to this exercise that are “in scope” for SCI.) Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F9E0.E7C285A0] 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/> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:41 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions Importance: High Dear SCI members, As discussed during the SCI call last week on 17 September, please see below the proposed letter from the SCI to the GNSO Council on the issue of the waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of motions. This is a consensus call. Please indicate your agreement with, or objection to, the proposed letter. If there are no objections or changes received by COB Tuesday, 29 September 2015, the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full consensus. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------------ Dear Jonathan, On 05 March 2015 the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) on the issue of whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for the submission of motions can be applied to resubmitted motions. The Review Request was one of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The SCI is continuing to discuss the other Review Request from the Council for the SCI to consider codifying the current informal procedure for amendments to motions and to recommend any changes SCI believes (through full consensus) are appropriate. The SCI has determined after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures that by its terms as previously approved by Council, the waiver of the 10-day deadline for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted motions. Further, after lengthy discussion of the possible issues, the SCI is reluctant to make any recommendations to change the current status of the Operating Procedures given that no instance of a problem arising in this regard has occurred. The SCI also notes that although changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures 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 further analysis. Please let us know whether you or the Council have any questions or require further information concerning the SCI's response to this issue request. Best regards, Anne and Rudi Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair Rudi Vansnick, SCI Vice-Chair ________________________________ 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.

1 0

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call: Waiver of 10-Day Motion Deadline and Resubmission of Motions
by Angie Graves Sept. 26, 2015

Sept. 26, 2015

I agree. Thanks Anne and Rudi. It looks quite nice. Angie On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for this Julie, Anne and Rudi. I think this draft does the trick > nicely. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> > wrote: > > > > Dear SCI members, > > > > As discussed during the SCI call last week on 17 September, please see > below the proposed letter from the SCI to the GNSO Council on the issue of > the waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of motions. > > > > This is a consensus call. > > > > Please indicate your agreement with, or objection to, the proposed > letter. If there are no objections or changes received by COB Tuesday, 29 > September 2015, the letter will be presumed to be accepted by full > consensus. > > > > Kind regards, > > Julie > > > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > ------------------------ > > Dear Jonathan, > > > > On 05 March 2015 the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation > (SCI) submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request (see attached) on the > issue of whether the waiver of the 10-day deadline for the submission of > motions can be applied to resubmitted motions. The Review Request was one > of two that the Council approved at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The SCI > is continuing to discuss the other Review Request from the Council for the > SCI to consider codifying the current informal procedure for amendments to > motions and to recommend any changes SCI believes (through full consensus) > are appropriate. > > > > The SCI has determined after a review of the GNSO Operating Procedures > that by its terms as previously approved by Council, the waiver of the > 10-day deadline for submission of motions does not apply to resubmitted > motions. Further, after lengthy discussion of the possible issues, the SCI > is reluctant to make any recommendations to change the current status of > the Operating Procedures given that no instance of a problem arising in > this regard has occurred. The SCI also notes that although changes to the > GNSO Operating Procedures 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 further analysis. > > > > Please let us know whether you or the Council have any questions or > require further information concerning the SCI's response to this issue > request. > > > > Best regards, > > Anne and Rudi > > > > Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair > > Rudi Vansnick, SCI Vice-Chair > > <SCI Review Request - Waiver & Resubmission - 5 Mar 2015.pdf> > > >

3 2

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 17 September 2015
by Terri Agnew Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday, 17 September 2015: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-17sep15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Rudi Vansnick - NPOC - Primary - Vice Chair Amr Elsadr - NCUC - Primary Avri Doria - NCSG - Primary Lori Schulman - IPC - Alternate Angie Graves - BC - Primary Jennifer Standiford - RrSG - Primary Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC - Primary - Chair Apologies: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary ICANN Staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings 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 17 September 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation on Thursday, 17 September 2015 Jennifer Standiford:HI Terri Terri Agnew:Welcome Jennifer! Jennifer Standiford:i will follow along for this meeing via chat - i am also on the UASG call at the same time. Amr Elsadr:Hi Terri and all. Apologies in advance for any background noise today. Avri Doria:I will also be on two calls at once, also listeinign in to the UASG meeting. Terri Agnew:Lori Schulman has joined audio Rudi Vansnick:and as i had never happened it is unreasonable to spend too much time in the SCI Rudi Vansnick:and as it had ... sorry Amr Elsadr:I've always been a fan of consensus calls being done on-list, not on calls. Amr Elsadr:Perhaps a deadline to raise a lack of consensus? Marika Konings:I think on most of the previous issues a call for consensus would go out on the mailing list - those objecting would be asked to express their view on the mailing list. Amr Elsadr:I like Marika's suggestion. Will get the job done. :) Rudi Vansnick:which consensus does the council expect ? Marika Konings:for SCI issues it is full consensus Rudi Vansnick:yes indeed Marika's proposal would most probably work for us Marika Konings:it doesn't specify how that is assessed Avri Doria:actually i think full consensus applies, which don't need to be affirmative about it. Marika Konings:@Avri - that is also my understanding Avri Doria:i think Marika's suggest of no objections befor enext meeting is sufficinet. Amr Elsadr:Although full consensus is not necessary, no harm in getting it anyway. I believe we do have full consensus on this. We just need to go through the motions of a consensus call. I suggest doing this on list (using "passive" consensus). Amr Elsadr:No objections. Marika Konings:@Anne - yes, that is correct Marika Konings:with regard to your question on current practice Marika Konings:As a reminder, the Council asked the SCI to: codify the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council (as described above).If the SCI believes that the current practices are inappropriate, the SCI should convey its reasons for such belief to the Council and develop new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions. Amr Elsadr:@Marika: regarding whether or not the current practices are appropriate, some on council are not very eager about the idea to change the current practices at all. Amr Elsadr:Not so sure about the seconder. Marika Konings:As far as I recall, if a motion has been seconded, the seconder also would need to agree Amr Elsadr:Technically, a new more agreeable seconder could be recruited to replace the first one during the council meeting. :) Amr Elsadr:But since seconding motions is not in the GNSO OP at all..., it's all a little fuzzy. Marika Konings:@Amr, that is also within the request of the Council to the SCI. To clarify whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded Amr Elsadr:Yup. Marika Konings:@Anne - I have my hand up. Not sure if you are seeing it. Avri Doria:true but that has been a practice forever. since at least 2005 Amr Elsadr:In BA, the council was asked to vote on the amendment to the motion before voting on the actual motion. Amr Elsadr:Something we may wish to also consider. Marika Konings:@Amr - that has also been the standing practice Marika Konings:in the case of an unfriendly motion Amr Elsadr:Ah. Wasn't familiar with that one. Thanks Marika. ;-) Marika Konings:A Council member can ask for a deferral if they are of the view that the amendment needs to be further considered. Rudi Vansnick:agree with Amr Marika Konings:I found Mary's overview and I have posted that on the right side in the note pod Marika Konings:the only issue is when the motion has already been deferred once.... Amr Elsadr:To be clear, deferral of motions is not a tradition. It is in the OPs. Marika Konings:as no second deferral is allowed Rudi Vansnick:does a second deferral could end up as a new motion entered Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: I was just thinking about that. After a deferral, what would happen if another amendment was suggested (at the second council meeting). :) Terri Agnew:Julie has disconnected from audio Marika Konings:I'm looking at the operating procedures, but cannot find it - I thought it was a clarification that was provided by the SCI and not a change to the operating procedures, but will keep on looking. Amr Elsadr:I was actually unaware of the need of the chair to approve the deferral. Will have to refresh my memory. Thanks. Rudi Vansnick:i remember it happened if i'm not wrong it was in Singapore Amr Elsadr:We have some homework. :) Marika Konings:I'll make a note of that Amr Elsadr:Yes..., thanks Anne. By codify, I meant suggest changes to the OPs. Lori Schulman:How would we "document" Would be appropriate to ask for some kind of flow? Marika Konings:The Council resolution also said: The GNSO Council suggests that in carrying out this task the SCI consult past GNSO Chairs and Councilors as well as commonly accepted guides and practices (such as Robert's Rules of Order) and other ICANN bodies (such as the Board and other SO/ACs). Lori Schulman:I see Mary's doc but I wouldn't say its definitive. Marika Konings:and Anne is correct, the Council request was based on the procedure as it was outlined by Mary (as the process to codify) Marika Konings:it was part of the request that the Council voted on Lori Schulman:Thank you Marika. I was not clear about that. Amr Elsadr:Hmm..., looking through the OPs now. Can't find the bit on deferral of motions. Will go through it more thoroughly offline. Rudi Vansnick:thanks Ann for this good meeting Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Marika Konings:It was a letter clariying, no change to ops procedures. I'll send it out shortly. Marika Konings:Thanks Anne Lori Schulman:Thanks for clarifying tough topics Anee.

1 0

For your review and feedback - current GNSO practice in relation to motions
by Marika Konings Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Dear All, Following on from the meeting today, please find hereunder the message that was sent by the SCI on 12 December 2012 to the GNSO Council concerning the issue of deferrals. Do note that in relation to consideration of PDP outputs, the GNSO Operating Procedures do specify a separate process for postponement, for example: "At the request of any Council member, for any reason, consideration of the Final Issue Report may be postponed by not more than one (1) meeting, provided that the Council member details the rationale for such a postponement. Consideration of the Final Issue Report may only be postponed for a total of one (1) meeting, even if multiple Council members request postponement". As also requested, you will find attached in a word document the current practice as outlined by Mary which was also part of the SCI request as adopted by the GNSO Council on 16 April 2015 (which has also been attached). As discussed during the meeting, you are encouraged to review this first document ahead of the next meeting and include any comments / edits / suggestions you may have. As a reminder, the GNSO Council framed its request to the SCI as follows: WHEREAS: 1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request that noted the following issue: * Although there is currently a rule regarding the deadline for timely submission of motions for voting by the GNSO Council (see Section 3.3 of the Operating Procedures), there is none regarding: * whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and * Treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either "friendly" or "unfriendly". * These have been supported by Council practice to date as opposed to operating procedural rules. RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council requests that the SCI codifies the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council (as described above). 2. If the SCI believes that the current practices are inappropriate, the SCI should convey its reasons for such belief to the Council and develop new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions. 3. The GNSO Council suggests that in carrying out this task the SCI consult past GNSO Chairs and Councilors as well as commonly accepted guides and practices (such as Robert's Rules of Order) and other ICANN bodies (such as the Board and other SO/ACs). Best regards, Marika Deferral of Motions: The SCI was asked by the council to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided (for example, certain deferrals are foreseen as part of the GNSO PDP, see http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf) The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative or the negative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice.

1 0

Re: [ntfy-gnso-improvem-impl-sc] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation - Thursday, 03 September at 18:00 UTC
by Amr Elsadr Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Hi, Apologies, but something has come up. I won’t make it to tomorrow’s call. I will listen to the recording when it becomes available and submit comments on-list if I need to. Thanks. Amr > On Sep 2, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear All, > > The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Thursday, 03 September 2015 at 18:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

2 2