- Gnso-improvem-impl-sc - lists.icann.org

Re: Reminder re: Action: Re-Submitting a Motion
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

Hi Anne, Thank you very much for the helpful update. We'll look forward to Greg's report during the call on the 8th. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, October 3, 2013 3:23 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: Reminder re: Action: Re-Submitting a Motion Hi Julie, The draft changes were submitted to IPC Leadership yesterday for review no later than Monday, October 7. So you know, I cannot do the call on Tuesday as I will be travelling and Greg Shatan will be carrying the ball as alternate for this meeting. Greg was copied on the draft changes and will be getting feedback from IPC Leadership prior to the October 8 call. 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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:39 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Reminder re: Action: Re-Submitting a Motion Dear Anne, Thank you very much for your suggestions for changes to the procedure for re-submitting a motion. It would be very helpful if you could consider putting your suggestions in writing, perhaps by providing changes to the existing language. I have included that language below for your reference. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar daysbefore the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda. 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: PLEASE READ AND RESPOND ACCORDINGLY - Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting
by Ron Andruff Oct. 1, 2013

Oct. 1, 2013

Thank you for your input, Wolf-Ulrich. This would suggest that a SCI meeting would be best held 15:00-16:30. If no one is opposed to this, I would ask Julie to please put this in the BA calendar and mark it as an 'open' meeting for any interested party that is on-site who would like to attend. Julie: If we have not heard any disagreement within the coming 48 hours, please go ahead as instructed. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 14:55 To: Avri Doria; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting GNSO meetings on Sunday are planned so far until 16:30 - but 1. closed SG meetings are scheduled from 16:30 2. usually there is a board/GAC meeting scheduled later in the afternoon Everyone has to follow her/his preferences. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:14 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting Hi, Meeting Sunday afternoon should be fine as long as it is fit into the GNSO Council schedule for that day. Sundays are often rather busy. I think a 90 minute meeting might make sense if we can somehow schedule it as a way to get this committee back on track. I feel we have lost our way over the last few months and need a reset. It would also be useful to have an open meeting, which I assume this would be, so that others who might be interested in the topics could get involved. avri On 25 Sep 2013, at 19:06, Ron Andruff wrote: > Dear Julie and Committee Members, > > With all of the new faces on the SCI, and with Charter work to do along > with the rest of the outstanding issues, I am going to suggest that we > meet later in the afternoon on Sunday (prior to the Monday morning BA > meeting kick-off) to allow as many members to join the meeting as > possible. > > I also agree that a 90-minute meeting would provide us the time to get > some significant work completed. > > How do the members feel about this approach? Please advise. > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > RA > > Ron Andruff > RNA Partners > www.rnapartners.com > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf OfJulie Hedlund > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 15:10 > To: Ron Andruff; Avri Doria > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting > > Dear Ron and Avri, > > Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting > in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members > expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We > have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or > afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be > Sunday, 17 November. > > Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have > meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 > minutes for a meeting. > > Thank you very much for your assistance. > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

4 6

Planning for Buenos Aires SCI Meeting
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2013

Oct. 1, 2013

Dear Ron and Avri, Staff are beginning to plan working group meetings for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. If I recall correctly on our call last week SCI members expressed interest in having a face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. We have typically held SCI meetings at ICANN meetings in the morning or afternoon on the Sunday of the meeting. In this case that would be Sunday, 17 November. Do you have a preference for a morning or afternoon meeting? Do you have meetings times you might prefer? I think we should consider scheduling 90 minutes for a meeting. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

6 9

Action: Re-Submitting a Motion
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 30, 2013

Sept. 30, 2013

Dear Anne, Thank you very much today for your suggestions for changes to the procedure for re-submitting a motion. It would be very helpful if you could consider putting your suggestions in writing, perhaps by providing changes to the existing language. I have included that language below for your reference. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Possible Options for Addressing the Re-Submission of a Motion: Set one or more high-level criteria (in this order): 1) Provide a reasoning to justify the resubmission of a motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar daysbefore the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 2) Publish the text of the re-submitted motion. Complete no later than the deadline for submitting a motion: for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the second GNSO Council meeting following the meeting when the motion first was submitted. 3) Require a seconder of the motion from each house as a prerequisite for placing the re-submission of the motion on the consent agenda.

3 3

apologies
by Avri Doria Sept. 12, 2013

Sept. 12, 2013

hi, sorry about missing the meeting without prior apologies. just noticed the message sitting on my desktop. avri

1 0

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Action: Re-Submitting a Motion
by Amr Elsadr Sept. 12, 2013

Sept. 12, 2013

Hi Jen, There is one thing that I feel needs to be noted in the sequence of the events of this particular incident: On Sep 12, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe(a)wolfedomain.com> wrote: > As additional background, the instance which prompted this issue to be considered was one where a councilor abstained from a vote because of a potential conflict of interest on the motion. When a question was raised as to why he abstained, it was concluded he did not need to abstain because his SOI covered the conflict issue. The request was then made to either cast another vote or resubmit the motion. No one objected to resubmitting the motion and resubmitting the motion for a vote did not change the substantive outcome. The request to either cast another vote or resubmit the motion was not made directly following the voting, but at the very end of the meeting. By then, a few councillors had already dropped off the call. My impression at the time was that there might have been an objection to the resubmission of the motion had that not been the case, with all the councillors being present. This was a while back though, so please correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks. Amr

1 0

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Status
by Ron Andruff Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

Thank you for this update, Ken. Very good news indeed. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Ken Bour <ken.bour(a)verizon.net> Date: 09/11/2013 00:00 (GMT+01:00) To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Cc: 'Mike O'Connor' <mike(a)haven2.com> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] WG Self-Assessment Status SCI Members: I was delighted to learn on today’s call, from Mikey, that the Thick WHOIS test group was invited to complete the WG Self-Assessment instrument. According to QuestionPro, five surveys have been entered (from 22 Aug – 5 Sep). Two individuals viewed the survey, did not complete any questions, and left no identity other than IP address and region (auto-collected). Having reviewed each of the completed responses briefly, everyone appears to have followed the directions, answered all (or most) of the questions, and added comments (varies by individual). My first impression is that each assessment was thoughtfully prepared and, once we have a larger sample, should be useful to the GNSO. The content portion of the test appears to be proceeding well. As you know, the Self-Assessment does not include any questions about the methodology or the process, which are important aspects that we want to understand. I hope that the five members who already answered the questionnaire as well as all future participants from Thick WHOIS will take time to add their thoughts on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag. I will provide another update after Mikey sends out a reminder and we see a few more surveys. Once we declare this test completed (maybe two more weeks or so?), I will prepare a formal report along with stats and a listing of verbatim comments received -- randomized so as not to reveal pattern or source. If you have any questions, please let me know. Ken Bour

1 0

MP3 recording of the SCI meeting - 10 September 2013
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will be held on Tuesday 8 October 2013 at 1900 UTC. Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 19:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20130910-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>sep (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ronald Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary - Chair Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Mikey O'Connor - ISPCP - Alternate Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Primary Ken Bour - guest speaker Jennifer Wolfe - NCA primary Amr Elsadr - NCUC Alternate James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Primary Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Jennifer Standiford - - Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Ken Bour - Guest Greg Shatan - IPC - Apologies: Nuno Garcia - NCUC - Alternate Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary - Vice-Chair ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julie Hedlund Mary Wong Nathalie Peregrine ** 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, Nathalie Peregrine For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript 10 September 2013: Jennifer Wolfe 2:Is there a separate phone dial in? Bladel:US: 866-692-5726 Passcode SCI Jennifer Wolfe 2:Thank you! Amr Elsadr:Just dialled in. Hi. Julie Hedlund:Thanks Amr! Amr Elsadr:Avri can't make it today. Amr Elsadr:Yup. On a plane. Nathalie Peregrine:Yes, Avri is an apology Angie Graves:I am Ron's alternate--will be glad to run mtg if need be Ron A:Thanks for pitching in, Angie...;o) Mike O'Connor:Bladel's a registrar Amr Elsadr:The council member didn't vote at all thinking he had a COI. Amr Elsadr:..., then realizing he didn't. Marika Konings:@ Anne - apologies for simplifying the scenario. Marika Konings:@Anne - who would make that evaluation? Marika Konings:whether the motion is the same or different? Mike O'Connor:James -- Here's the one that dropped off the list as of June - 4) Allow a councilor to ask for the re-submission of the motion to betaken off the consent agenda and to request a Council vote on whether toaccept the re-submission. Julie Hedlund:@Anne: Do you have some language to suggest? Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Ron - it's two resubmissions, not three Ron A:Thanks Anne, that is my understanding Mary Wong:Just a note: the original problem that created this issue was how to prevent any person/group from resubmitting an identical motion in order to change the outcome of a previous vote. That may be narrower than what the discussion is about right now. Greg Shatan:Why is that a problem? Amr Elsadr:Got disconnected. Mike O'Connor:kudos to Anne for working that one! Nathalie Peregrine:Amr, would you like a dial out Amr Elsadr:Sorry about that. Am now on the call again. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks Mikey Amr Elsadr:I'll send my comment to the list. Ron A:Amr are you now back on the call? Is your hand up? Amr Elsadr:Yes and yes. :) Ron A:Thank you. Julie Hedlund:To Amr's point, this is what Avri sent to the SCI list yesterday on this issue: One of the things that I got out of the GNSO discussion was that even if we maintain the full consensus vote threshholder for an SCI recommendation, that does not mean that the group can't decide to send a deadlock report to the council if that were to happen. I think this report would still require full consensus agreement, but I do not see that as a problem as long as everyone's viewpoint was accurately portrayed. Amr Elsadr:Is anything expected of us on this topic at this point?? Julie Hedlund:@Amr: I think the Council expects the SCI to send its revision of the charter, but without making changes to the decision-making procedure. Amr Elsadr:@Julie..., that's what I gathered. ..., unfortunate though, because it seems Council will make some sort of decision on this which will be reflected in the SCI's new charter. Marika Konings:@Amr - that is the privilege of the chartering organization ;-) Amr Elsadr:@Marika: True... :) ..., I still wish we could have agreed as a group to give a unified recommendation. Amr Elsadr:@Mikey: I put one in too. :) Amr Elsadr:It's a big WG. :) Amr Elsadr:I'll reach out to a few as well. Jennifer Wolfe:I apologize I have to jump onto a 4 p.m. call. I look forward to continuing the discussion in email and in our next meeting. Ron A:Thank you jennifer Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Ron - I also have a 1:00 pm conference call AZ time and will drop off but hopefully Greg can stay on and let me know about the rest of the discussion. I will be sure to propose alternative language in relation to Resubmssion of a Motion. Thank you everyone . Anne Bladel:Thanks, Ron & Team! Amr Elsadr:Thanks everyone. Bye. Wolf Knoben:By all! Wolf Knoben:I mean Bye Julie Hedlund:Goodbye everyone!

1 0

WG Self-Assessment Status
by Ken Bour Sept. 10, 2013

Sept. 10, 2013

SCI Members: I was delighted to learn on today's call, from Mikey, that the Thick WHOIS test group was invited to complete the WG Self-Assessment instrument. According to QuestionPro, five surveys have been entered (from 22 Aug - 5 Sep). Two individuals viewed the survey, did not complete any questions, and left no identity other than IP address and region (auto-collected). Having reviewed each of the completed responses briefly, everyone appears to have followed the directions, answered all (or most) of the questions, and added comments (varies by individual). My first impression is that each assessment was thoughtfully prepared and, once we have a larger sample, should be useful to the GNSO. The content portion of the test appears to be proceeding well. As you know, the Self-Assessment does not include any questions about the methodology or the process, which are important aspects that we want to understand. I hope that the five members who already answered the questionnaire as well as all future participants from Thick WHOIS will take time to add their thoughts on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag. I will provide another update after Mikey sends out a reminder and we see a few more surveys. Once we declare this test completed (maybe two more weeks or so?), I will prepare a formal report along with stats and a listing of verbatim comments received -- randomized so as not to reveal pattern or source. If you have any questions, please let me know. Ken Bour

1 0

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

Sept. 10, 2013

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

3 2