Dear SCI members, Here is the attachment that I meant to send. Best regards, Julie From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:32 PM To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions from GNSO Council Wrap Up Session Dear SCI members, The GNSO Council discussed several issues relating to the SCI at its wrap up session on Thursday, 18 July at the ICANN meeting in Durban. See the transcript at: http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-18jul1 3-en.pdf. In particular, the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter, which resulted in the following actions: 1. The GNSO Council agreed that the SCI for now is to be a 'standing committee' and the charter should be amended accordingly if it is not clear from the current wording. 2. On decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making Decisions), the Council agreed to consider this issue further on the mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their views in support of one or the other with the mailing list (this will be reflected in the action items). Jeff was also asked to provide in writing his contribution with regard to why the SCI was initially required to operate under full consensus. I have attached for discussion during our call on Tuesday 06 August 2013 at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST , 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET) the version of the charter as it stood prior to the changes suggested by Mikey, since I think that version reflects the status of the SCI as a 'standing committee'. However, if this is not clear in the current version, we can discuss how to clarify it. In addition, I will share any discussions concerning the SCI decision-making process that may subsequently appear on the GNSO Council list. In addition, the Council has added two new issues for the SCI to consider: 1. Voting: The option of voting by email. 2. Procedural waiver: Whether a provision / waiver should be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures that in certain circumstances would specifically allow the GNSO Council to bypass its procedures (for example in the case of non-objection). If there were SCI members present during the wrap-up session please feel free to comment on, add to, or amend what I have reported above. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director