All,
 
since I could not attend the last call I can’t see a reason to ask the council whether they intend to take on the charter revision or not – they definitely don’t like to do this work.
The council shall only discuss what’s going to be suggested by the SCI, maybe alternate charter proposals re full consensus.
 
There shall be – hopefully – an exchange on the council list following the Durban wrap-up. But it will take a little time since the action list has just been delivered and people are on holiday. The exchange could then been used as additional input for the SCI work.
 
So my suggestion is to continue our SCI chartering work (on the basis that the SCI shall continue as “standing”) and not pinging forward and backward with the voting question.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:26 PM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson
 

I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown here:

 

At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council.  In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the “full consensus” process is beneficial for a group of this type.  The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested.    However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly.  In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible.  The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate.

 

Anne

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700

One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

Map to Parking Garage

Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725

AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman

 

P

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 

From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan Robinson
Importance: High

 

Dear SCI members,

 

As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter.

 

Please respond by **COB Wednesday, 14 August** with any comments on the draft message.   No comments will be understood as agreement with the email’s contents.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

------------------ Begin Draft Message ---------------------------------------

Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July.  At its meeting yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter.  In particular, based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the Charter to reflect that role.

 

Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions).  The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus.

 

At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do so by the Council.  In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI members who believe the “full consensus” process is beneficial for a group of this type.  The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter and Consensus issues if so requested.    However, if the Council, as the Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly.  In either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised Charter available as soon as possible.  The SCI stands ready to assist in this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate.

 

We await your guidance.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI

 

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.