Hi,

I will just followup with a few remarks. Probably no more that a few minutes. I would say that your report be no longer than 10 minutes with time for questions. Thank you for reclaiming your repsonsiblity for this report. I am grateful that we were reminded of our charter. Would probably do for those of us who haven't read in a while to reread it. I will do so before the meeting to make sure we are strictly adhering to its guidance. Wouldn't do for us to be advising others on process when we ourselves are not quite kosher in our practices.

As for the no decision in one meeting practice. You call it a protocol. I called it a common practice, and perhaps even common sense, used in many groups, but nowhere codified. Personally I first started using the practice back when we were doing the weekly calls to find consensus on the new gTLD program. Many have used it since then. I am surprised that no WG or other you participated in, used the technique. But in any case, it is a voluntary practice. We never did it explicitly in SCI, because previous chairs were careful to be deliberate and make sure there was enough bottom-up discussion to develop a position before a decision was made. This generally takes a few meetings. Often members have to go back to their constituencies before they can give final approval. That is a lesson you yourself have shown by example on many occasions.

I understand the enthusiasm of a new chair to make the trains run on time, but the SCI is supposed to be slow, plodding and deliberative. Our role is essentially conservative, only touching and fixing that which needs to be fixed. We are not here to craft new ways of doing things, just to help out when something is not working right. Sure we should do the best we can to cover eventualities when asked to deal with an issue, but opening an issue just becasue someone thought of a new posbility that might be significant someday, may be stretching our mission.

And as Mary's note indicated, several of the points in your letter seemed to be contrary to prior positions of the group. It is fine to change direction, but that should only be done after the previous opinion is explored and understood and the group reaches new consensus.

Thanks

avri

On 27-Jan-15 21:18, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to Council.

Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to “never make a decision in one meeting”. We can certainly discuss this within SCI on our next call.

Anne