Dear All,
The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place on 13 September 2012 at 19:00 UTC.
Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 30 August 2012 at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120830-en.mp3 on page
Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug
Attendees
Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary
Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary
J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Constituency – Primary
Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC Alternate
Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary
Apology:
Mary Wong – Non-Commercial Users Constituency - Primary
Jonathan Robinson – Registry Stakeholder Group - Alternate
James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate
Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Alternate
Staff:
Julie Hedlund
Marika Konings
Berry Cobb
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
GNSO Secretariat
AC Chat transcript 30 August 2012
Julie Hedlund: Hi Marika I just
Julie Hedlund: joined
Marika Konings: Hi Julie
Marika Konings: Analysis is up now.
avri: The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG.
J. Scott Evans: I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue
Ron A: @ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling
Ron A: BC supports status quo
Ron A: Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle
Ron A: My point Avri!
J. Scott Evans: If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated.
Ron A: What happens if the chair is biased for or against?
Ron A: bias by way of affiliation
J. Scott Evans: Good question Anne.
J. Scott Evans: I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU
avri: Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair.
J. Scott Evans: SCI
avri: PDP's not PDPD's
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed.
J. Scott Evans: If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote.
Ray Fassett - RySG: agree with J Scott
J. Scott Evans: In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted
Ron A: @ J +1
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI.
Ron A: 8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri
Ray Fassett - RySG: Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral".
Ray Fassett - RySG: in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints?
avri: i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do.
avri: coffying - codifying.
Ron A: @ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI
Ron A: SCI recommendations
avri: each chair gets to interpret on her own.
Ron A: Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle
avri: and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules.
Ray Fassett - RySG: agree with ron and avri
Ron A: @ J - fully agree with your summation
avri: The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives.
Ray Fassett - RySG: agree with j scott
Ron A: The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds
Anne Aikman-Scalese: J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary?
J. Scott Evans: Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair.
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org