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

Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures
by Glen de Saint Géry July 9, 2012

July 9, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jul12-en.htm Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 9 July 2012 Comment Close: 30 July 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jul12-en.htm> Reply Open: 31 July 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:gnso-operating-procedures-2012@icann.org> Reply Close: 20 August 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-operating-procedures-2012/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) has recommended adding a new section to the GNSO Operating Procedures outlining a procedure for a consent agenda as well as updating the GNSO Council Voting Results Table to bring it in line with the GNSO voting thresholds in the ICANN Bylaws which were recently updated as a result of the recent approval of the revised GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Current Status: As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated on the proposed changes. Next Steps: Following the closing of the public comment forum, the SCI will review the comments received; revise its recommendations, if deemed appropriate, and; submit these to the GNSO Council for its approval. Staff Contact: Marika Konings, Sr. Policy Director Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Modifications%20to%20GNSO%20Operating%20Procedures%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The GNSO Council requested the SCI on 20 February 2012 to develop a proposed process for a consent agenda. The SCI has reached consensus on the proposed procedure for a consent agenda and the proposed language to be incorporated in the GNSO Operating Procedures. The main elements of the proposed procedure for a consent agenda are: * When preparing the meeting agenda, the Council Chair in consultation with the Council Vice-Chairs determines whether an item belongs on the consent agenda; * Items that are not eligible for inclusion in the consent agenda are those items that are not subject to a simple majority vote and items subject to absentee voting; * If any Council member requests that an item be removed from the consent agenda, it must be removed; * If an item is removed from the consent agenda, it is added to the meeting agenda for that meeting; * When there are no more items to be removed, the Chair reads out the number of the remaining consent items. Then the Chair calls for a vote. The proposed provision to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures can be found here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/consent-agenda-09jul12-en.pdf> [PDF, 40 KB]. In addition, the proposed provision can be reviewed as part of the proposed revised GNSO Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-…> [PDF, 670 KB] in section 4.9. In addition, the GNSO Council Voting Results Table (Appendix 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures) required updating, following the approval of the revised GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) and the subsequent modification of the ICANN Bylaws, to include the new and modified voting thresholds linked to the revised GNSO PDP such as approval of a PDP Team Charter, termination of a PDP and modification/amendment of an approved PDP recommendation. The revised GNSO Voting Results Table can be found here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/appendix-1-gnso-council-voting-results-red…> [PDF, 188 KB]. In addition, the proposed modifications can be reviewed as part of the proposed revised GNSO Operating Procedures in Appendix 1<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-…> [PDF, 670 KB]. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the SCI is requesting community input on these proposed modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Section II: Background The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 to be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and approved by the GNSO Council. For further information about the SCI and its activities, please see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home. Section III: Document and Resource Links Proposed Consent Agenda Procedure<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/consent-agenda-09jul12-en.pdf> [PDF, 40 KB] Revised GNSO Voting Results Table<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/appendix-1-gnso-council-voting-results-red…> [PDF, 188 KB] Revised GNSO Operating Procedures (version 2.5)<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-…> [PDF, 670 KB] ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws> Section IV: Additional Information N/A (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [council] SCI update and motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de July 9, 2012

July 9, 2012

Hi Marika, following a related E-Mail exchange on the council list no opposition has been raised against proceeding with option 1. Please arrange for the necessary administration of a 21 public comment period for both documents. Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012 18:26 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] SCI update and motion Thanks Bill for responding. Wolf, if you do not see any opposition to this by COB tomorrow, Friday July 6, please proceed with option 1. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 5 juil. 2012 à 07:25, William Drake a écrit : Not me BD On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Thanks Wolf. Please thank the SCI for this work. I would suggest we adopt the first procedure, with the SCI putting out for public comment and only coming to the Council once this has been done and it has incorporated any comments received in the way it sees fit. Does anyone oppose this? Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 4 juil. 2012 à 15:46, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> a écrit : Dear Councilors, As discussed during the SCI update to the GNSO Council in Prague, the SCI has now approved the proposed procedure for a consent agenda as well as an updated version of the voting matrix which incorporates the new voting thresholds resulting from the recently approved revised GNSO PDP. Both these documents are intended to modify the GNSO Operating Procedures. The SCI hereby submits these documents for your consideration, approval and sending out for public comment period of 21 days. A respective motion is attached if needed. As also discussed during the Prague meeting, the SCI would like to obtain clarification from the GNSO Council on how to handle public input on these proposed changes in future. ICANN Staff has indicated that according to the ICANN Bylaws at a minimum a public comment period of 21 days should be conducted on any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. From the SCI's perspective, there are two possible options the GNSO Council may want to consider: 1. The SCI puts out the proposed changes out for public comment, following which the SCI reviews the public comments received and updates the proposed changes, if deemed appropriate. The updated proposed changes, in addition to the report of public comments received are then submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration. 2. The SCI submits the proposed changes to the GNSO Council, following which the GNSO Council opens a public comment forum on the proposed changes. Once the public comment forum closes, the GNSO Council decides how to address any comments received, which may include referring the comments back to the SCI for consideration and possible updates to the proposed changes. >From the SCI's perspective, its members are happy to follow either procedure (or alternative the GNSO Council may want to propose), so that it is clear what the required steps are for any future proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures the SCI may propose. With best regards, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <GNSO Council Voting_Consensus.doc><Consent Agenda - Consensus.doc><Motion on the opening of a public comment forum - 4 July 2012.doc>

2 1

WG: [council] SCI update and motion
by KnobenW＠telekom.de July 4, 2012

July 4, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2012 16:35 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] SCI update and motion Thanks Wolf. Please thank the SCI for this work. I would suggest we adopt the first procedure, with the SCI putting out for public comment and only coming to the Council once this has been done and it has incorporated any comments received in the way it sees fit. Does anyone oppose this? Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 4 juil. 2012 à 15:46, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> a écrit : Dear Councilors, As discussed during the SCI update to the GNSO Council in Prague, the SCI has now approved the proposed procedure for a consent agenda as well as an updated version of the voting matrix which incorporates the new voting thresholds resulting from the recently approved revised GNSO PDP. Both these documents are intended to modify the GNSO Operating Procedures. The SCI hereby submits these documents for your consideration, approval and sending out for public comment period of 21 days. A respective motion is attached if needed. As also discussed during the Prague meeting, the SCI would like to obtain clarification from the GNSO Council on how to handle public input on these proposed changes in future. ICANN Staff has indicated that according to the ICANN Bylaws at a minimum a public comment period of 21 days should be conducted on any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. From the SCI's perspective, there are two possible options the GNSO Council may want to consider: 1. The SCI puts out the proposed changes out for public comment, following which the SCI reviews the public comments received and updates the proposed changes, if deemed appropriate. The updated proposed changes, in addition to the report of public comments received are then submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration. 2. The SCI submits the proposed changes to the GNSO Council, following which the GNSO Council opens a public comment forum on the proposed changes. Once the public comment forum closes, the GNSO Council decides how to address any comments received, which may include referring the comments back to the SCI for consideration and possible updates to the proposed changes. >From the SCI's perspective, its members are happy to follow either procedure (or alternative the GNSO Council may want to propose), so that it is clear what the required steps are for any future proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures the SCI may propose. With best regards, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <GNSO Council Voting_Consensus.doc><Consent Agenda - Consensus.doc><Motion on the opening of a public comment forum - 4 July 2012.doc>

1 0

Meeting Invitation / Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting/ Thursday 12 July at 1900 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine July 3, 2012

July 3, 2012

Dear All, The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting teleconference is scheduled on Thursday 12 July 2012 at 1900 UTC 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=SCI+Meeting&iso=20… Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/standcommdraft/ Dial-in details are below. If you require a dial-out, please email me your preferred contact number. Thank you Kind regards Nathalie ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: SCI For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 *Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent on the participants' local telecom provider. Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ---------------------------- Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

GNSO Working session transcripts
by Glen de Saint Géry June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

1 0

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Deferrals - Key questions / logic points in order to try to achieve consensus
by J. Scott Evans June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

Thanks for this Jonathan. ------------------------------ On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 12:25 AM PDT Jonathan Robinson wrote: >Key Questions / Issues > > > >. Do we permit 1st deferrals? > >. Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals? > >. If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test? > >. Are 1st deferrals automatic or do we subject them to some form of >vote / test? > >. Can a deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / test >to overrule? > >. Do we permit 2nd deferrals? > >. If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of >vote / test? > >. Do we permit 3rd deferrals? > > > >My Answers > > > >. Do we permit 1st deferrals? >Yes > >. Do we require a reason / motivation for deferrals? >Yes > >. If a reason is required / provided, is it subject to any test? >No, we trust the provider of the reason > >. Are 1st deferrals automatically granted or do we subject them to >some form of vote / test? >Yes, they are automatically granted > >. Can a 1st deferral be overruled? If so, what is the condition / >test to overrule? >Yes, subject to a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] vote of >the council to deny > >. Do we permit 2nd deferrals? >Yes > >. If we permit 2nd deferrals, do we subject them to some form of >vote / test? >Yes, 2nd deferral requires a request from a councillor and a [supermajority] >vote of the council to permit > >. Do we permit 3rd deferrals? >No. A motion should be voted on or withdrawn at this stage. >Note: I use "withdrawn" not "tabled" as tabled in my English, tabled means >put forward / submitted not withdrawn >

1 0

Council report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012

All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf-

5 10

SCI report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012

Good morning Glen! Would you be so kind to forward the SCI report attached to the council and post it to the agenda? Thank you and looking forward to see you in Prague Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

2 1

RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu June 21, 2012

June 21, 2012

Actually, my recollection/impression was that when the SCI charter was drafted the phrase was intended to refer to SGs and Cs as well. Can staff or someone with a better memory than I recall one way or the other? Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors. "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrlaw.com> wrote: I think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working group or other team with an adopted GNSO charter. It does not appear to me on the surface that this phrase refers to a constituency. I doubt SCI wants to become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather than from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO which are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or stakeholder group. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 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. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM To: avri(a)acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council would be what is covered by the rules. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi, Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc. One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue. But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter. avri Krista Papac <Krista.Papac(a)ausregistry.com> wrote: >My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and >take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO >Council. > >Krista Papac >General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd >Email: >krista.papac(a)ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac@ausregistry.com> >Web: www.ausregistry.com > >From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of >KnobenW(a)telekom.de >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM >To: AAikman(a)lrlaw.com; marika.konings(a)icann.org; avri(a)acm.org >Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org >Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda > >The charter reads: ><<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects >to receive detailed input from the group affected by the >process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by >either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>> > >Request from individuals is not included. > > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > >________________________________ >Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] >Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20 >An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; >marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; >avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> >Cc: >gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the >charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would >have to be limited by the charter. >Anne > >[cid:image001.gif@01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel >Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, >Arizona 85701-1611 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. >This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information >intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. >If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the >agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are >hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying >of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was >received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the >original message. > > >________________________________ >From: >owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s >c(a)icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf >Of KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM >To: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; >avri(a)acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> >Cc: >gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my >first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with >flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. >Flexibility could mean that the SCI >- for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are >raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it >exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the >SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further >requests from outside >- for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and >make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope >- re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was >questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I >think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific >than relevant to the GNSO > >What do others mean? > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > >________________________________ >Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] >Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 >An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich >Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, > >Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council >which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on >who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for >public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus >items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues >with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion >with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that >individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements >topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either >the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should >individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or >should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get >clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that >have proposals / questions. > >With best regards, > >Marika > >From: "KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" ><KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> >To: >"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] SCI meeting agenda > >All: > >this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 >UTC: > >- Roll call >- Statement of Interests >- Approval of the agenda >- Background information (and suggested solutions) on > - Deferral of Motions > - Proxy Voting Procedure > - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP >- Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda >- AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? > > >Best regards >Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > >________________________________ > >For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to >www.lewisandroca.com<http://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. ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 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

5 4

AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
by KnobenW＠telekom.de June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

6 10