Will do. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: WG: [council] SCI update and motion Hi Marika, following a related E-Mail exchange on the council list no opposition has been raised against proceeding with option 1. Please arrange for the necessary administration of a 21 public comment period for both documents. Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012 18:26 An: William Drake Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Betreff: Re: [council] SCI update and motion Thanks Bill for responding. Wolf, if you do not see any opposition to this by COB tomorrow, Friday July 6, please proceed with option 1. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 5 juil. 2012 à 07:25, William Drake a écrit : Not me BD On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Thanks Wolf. Please thank the SCI for this work. I would suggest we adopt the first procedure, with the SCI putting out for public comment and only coming to the Council once this has been done and it has incorporated any comments received in the way it sees fit. Does anyone oppose this? Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 4 juil. 2012 à 15:46, <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> a écrit : Dear Councilors, As discussed during the SCI update to the GNSO Council in Prague, the SCI has now approved the proposed procedure for a consent agenda as well as an updated version of the voting matrix which incorporates the new voting thresholds resulting from the recently approved revised GNSO PDP. Both these documents are intended to modify the GNSO Operating Procedures. The SCI hereby submits these documents for your consideration, approval and sending out for public comment period of 21 days. A respective motion is attached if needed. As also discussed during the Prague meeting, the SCI would like to obtain clarification from the GNSO Council on how to handle public input on these proposed changes in future. ICANN Staff has indicated that according to the ICANN Bylaws at a minimum a public comment period of 21 days should be conducted on any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. From the SCI's perspective, there are two possible options the GNSO Council may want to consider: 1. The SCI puts out the proposed changes out for public comment, following which the SCI reviews the public comments received and updates the proposed changes, if deemed appropriate. The updated proposed changes, in addition to the report of public comments received are then submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration. 2. The SCI submits the proposed changes to the GNSO Council, following which the GNSO Council opens a public comment forum on the proposed changes. Once the public comment forum closes, the GNSO Council decides how to address any comments received, which may include referring the comments back to the SCI for consideration and possible updates to the proposed changes.
From the SCI's perspective, its members are happy to follow either procedure (or alternative the GNSO Council may want to propose), so that it is clear what the required steps are for any future proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures the SCI may propose. With best regards,
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <GNSO Council Voting_Consensus.doc><Consent Agenda - Consensus.doc><Motion on the opening of a public comment forum - 4 July 2012.doc>