Dear All,
Please find the MP3 recording of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 20:00 UTC.
On page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb
(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
Anne Aikman Scalese - Intellectual Property Constituency - Primary
Marie-Laure Lemineur – NPOC Alternative
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP
Greg Shatan – IPC - Alternate
Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary – Vice-Chair
Cintra Sooknanan: NPOC Primary – SCI Vice Chair
Amr Elsadr – NCUC Alternate
Apologies:
Thomas Rickert
Julie Hedlund
Mary Wong
ICANN Staff:
Marika Konings
Glen de Saint Géry
** 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,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
Adobe Chat Transcript 11 February 2014
Marika Konings:Welcome to the SCI meeting of 11 February 2014
Ron A:Nice to see you Glen and Marika
Ron A:just dialing in now...
Marie-laure Lemineur:Hello
Cintra Sooknanan1:Hello everyone
Cintra Sooknanan1:Jamaica has a bob sled team!
Marika Konings:Actually just noticed that Germany has pushed us to the 4th place now :-((
Marika Konings:We'll need some more skating medals obviously ;-)
Ron A:Still some days to go Marika! ;o)
Cintra Sooknanan1:Thanks so much for the dial out Glen
Glen de Saint Gery:my pleasure, sorry we had the wrong number Cintra!
Cintra Sooknanan1:it was my mistake, but all good
Amr Elsadr:Sorry I'm late. Dialling in now.
Avri Doria:seems lik we should alwasy worry about making sense.
Avri Doria:are we really openning this again?
Avri Doria:we only have 1 level of full consensus, and one level of near consensus,. all the others are not consensus at all.
Avri Doria:and we call near consensus gnso consensus
Avri Doria:i can speak, but my point is tangential
Ron A:@ AVri: please do speak
Anne Aikman-Scalese:The SCI could consider the following potential actions:• Add a new Consensus Level defining “Consensus Against” to the GNSO WG Guidelines• Without adding a new Consensus Level, clarify that the existing definition/description of “Consensus” includes situations appropriately determined to be “Consensus Against”• In either case, determine if the current “Divergence” level needs to be amended, e.g.:- Does “Divergence” always equate to “No Consensus”?- Does “Divergence” always mean there is a plurality of views?- Does the current definition/description of “Divergence” require clarification or amendment?• Determine that the current Consensus Levels are adequate to cover even the situation experienced by the IGO-INGO PDP WG.
Ron A:@ Avri: good clarification of levels
Marika Konings:From the SCI Charter: On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed)
Marie-laure Lemineur:Cintra could you please speak louder or closer to the mic
Marie-laure Lemineur:please?
Marika Konings:which was preceded by: 'Its tasks include making recommendations'
Amr Elsadr:@Avri + Marika: Yes..., the proposed changes on this excercise should probably address all the levels of consensus/decision-making, not just full consensus.
Anne Aikman-Scalese:Is the straw poll a voting member or everyone?
Marika Konings:@ Amr - if the SCI decides that changes are necessary...
Avri Doria:poll question makes not sense to me. i think it is broader that consensus against, but not as wide as the kettle of fish.
Avri Doria:call it just decsions making level and not consensusus against and i will understand
Anne Aikman-Scalese:Not my intent -but how caqn you avoid it if you are looking at them relatively?
Amr Elsadr:I just changed from and X to a check. Good thing Ron clarified what the X and check would be for. :)
Amr Elsadr:*an X
Marie-laure Lemineur:but narrow approach as a first step and than open at a later stage ?
Marie-laure Lemineur:open discussion
Avri Doria:a binary decsion ofn a multi-part decsion is bound to be problematic. 1 just consensus against, 2 negation of any of the decision level, 3 review of the over decsion making procedures in all their glory, 4, review of the wg guidelines
Avri Doria:3. review of the other decsions making procedures in all their glory
Avri Doria:i favor 2 or 3
Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Thanks. Great recommendation to move forward.
Avri Doria:i do not think i am on the sub team
Cintra Sooknanan1:all good thanks for the direction
Amr Elsadr:Will this be a closed or open meeting?
Wolf Knoben:open
Amr Elsadr:Thanks Wolf. I ask because it wasn't posted on the schedule of the BA meeting. I wasn't sure.
Marika Konings:in two weeks, next meeting would be 25 February
Amr Elsadr:Ah! Thanks. :)
Anne Aikman-Scalese:THank you everyone!
Marie-laure Lemineur:Thank you Ron and everyone
Cintra Sooknanan1:thanks have a great day
Cintra Sooknanan1:bye