All, For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Voting threshhold table per new By-Laws is still not finalized. You are now on that group, Wolf. I owe you and Marika my redline of the Word file she sent me. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting All, For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
No problem, Anne. So let's talk today how we can proceed. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2012 01:07 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: SCI meeting Voting threshhold table per new By-Laws is still not finalized. You are now on that group, Wolf. I owe you and Marika my redline of the Word file she sent me. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting All, For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
All, please find the agenda as well as the related documents for each agenda item posted on the wiki (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Next+Meeting). With best regards, Marika On 16/05/12 00:23, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
All,
For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested:
- Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP
This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all, If I recall correctly, what we discussed in the first call post San Jose was breaking our entire group into sub-groups around each topic that the SCI needs to address. These sub-groups were to be tasked with gathering the background information surrounding the topics to bring all of the members of the SCI up to speed on all of them. (So that those of us who are not well-versed on each topic would have some context within which we could consider the issues at question.) In the second call, we discussed reaching out to the entire SCI to ask members who had not yet volunteered to any of the sub-group to ask them to do so. We also tackled one of the topics directly and moved it quite far down the field. When I look at the agenda for tomorrow's call, I am confused about what we are doing. I know that there has been zero dialogue within the two work teams that I am noted on, so I am not sure what these teams are doing and what should be presented tomorrow.
From the agenda, it appears that we are walking down two alternative tracks simultaneously: One track to break down into sub-groups to gather the background context to enlighten and enable us to affectively address the issues at hand; the second track appears to being going straight ahead without the background and trying to resolve them.
I may be incorrect in my understanding, but I was not of an understanding that Angie and I were to be drafting language to present to the SCI. Please clarify. Thank you. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting All, For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Hi Ron, I think we are not far away from each other and hope we can find common understanding of wht we are doing. We've broken up into subgroups for the various topics. Marika established Wikis for the subgroups, and on May 08 she reached out to the SCI with the updated team members list asking for additional volunteers. Up to date I've not seen any additions. Nevertheless I think we could start working on the topics. We should discuss today what the teams need to start working. Since the tasks seem to be not that "heavy" - although there may be differences between the teams - there is no "special working method" needed (charter, mailing list e.a.). Any team member could start rolling the ball with a first suggestion. But maybe someone should lead the process. From the minutes of the last meeting I thought you or Angie was taking the lead in one of the groups (motion deferrals). As you say there was no discussion initiated within all teams we should today solve this lack of communication. I'm very happy to see Avri's proposal on the proxy voting topic. It will help the WT (and the SCI) to continue. Looking forward to hearing you and all later Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2012 22:32 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all, If I recall correctly, what we discussed in the first call post San Jose was breaking our entire group into sub-groups around each topic that the SCI needs to address. These sub-groups were to be tasked with gathering the background information surrounding the topics to bring all of the members of the SCI up to speed on all of them. (So that those of us who are not well-versed on each topic would have some context within which we could consider the issues at question.) In the second call, we discussed reaching out to the entire SCI to ask members who had not yet volunteered to any of the sub-group to ask them to do so. We also tackled one of the topics directly and moved it quite far down the field. When I look at the agenda for tomorrow's call, I am confused about what we are doing. I know that there has been zero dialogue within the two work teams that I am noted on, so I am not sure what these teams are doing and what should be presented tomorrow.
From the agenda, it appears that we are walking down two alternative tracks simultaneously: One track to break down into sub-groups to gather the background context to enlighten and enable us to affectively address the issues at hand; the second track appears to being going straight ahead without the background and trying to resolve them.
I may be incorrect in my understanding, but I was not of an understanding that Angie and I were to be drafting language to present to the SCI. Please clarify. Thank you. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting All, For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Please see attached redline with proposed clarifications. I still did not get a chance to look at the ByLaws as to the last nine columns. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:26 AM To: randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting Hi Ron, I think we are not far away from each other and hope we can find common understanding of wht we are doing. We've broken up into subgroups for the various topics. Marika established Wikis for the subgroups, and on May 08 she reached out to the SCI with the updated team members list asking for additional volunteers. Up to date I've not seen any additions. Nevertheless I think we could start working on the topics. We should discuss today what the teams need to start working. Since the tasks seem to be not that "heavy" - although there may be differences between the teams - there is no "special working method" needed (charter, mailing list e.a.). Any team member could start rolling the ball with a first suggestion. But maybe someone should lead the process. From the minutes of the last meeting I thought you or Angie was taking the lead in one of the groups (motion deferrals). As you say there was no discussion initiated within all teams we should today solve this lack of communication. I'm very happy to see Avri's proposal on the proxy voting topic. It will help the WT (and the SCI) to continue. Looking forward to hearing you and all later Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2012 22:32 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all, If I recall correctly, what we discussed in the first call post San Jose was breaking our entire group into sub-groups around each topic that the SCI needs to address. These sub-groups were to be tasked with gathering the background information surrounding the topics to bring all of the members of the SCI up to speed on all of them. (So that those of us who are not well-versed on each topic would have some context within which we could consider the issues at question.) In the second call, we discussed reaching out to the entire SCI to ask members who had not yet volunteered to any of the sub-group to ask them to do so. We also tackled one of the topics directly and moved it quite far down the field. When I look at the agenda for tomorrow's call, I am confused about what we are doing. I know that there has been zero dialogue within the two work teams that I am noted on, so I am not sure what these teams are doing and what should be presented tomorrow.
From the agenda, it appears that we are walking down two alternative tracks simultaneously: One track to break down into sub-groups to gather the background context to enlighten and enable us to affectively address the issues at hand; the second track appears to being going straight ahead without the background and trying to resolve them.
I may be incorrect in my understanding, but I was not of an understanding that Angie and I were to be drafting language to present to the SCI. Please clarify. Thank you. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting All, For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
Anne, thank you very much for your proposed edits. From a staff perspective, we see no issues with the edits proposed and agree that these would clarify the document. We would only suggest to change "2/3 vote of the council is equal to consensus" to "where a 2/3 vote of the council demonstrates the presence of a consensus" so it tracks the language in the ICANN Bylaws. With best regards, Marika On 17/05/12 21:00, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
Please see attached redline with proposed clarifications. I still did not get a chance to look at the ByLaws as to the last nine columns. Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:26 AM To: randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
Hi Ron,
I think we are not far away from each other and hope we can find common understanding of wht we are doing.
We've broken up into subgroups for the various topics. Marika established Wikis for the subgroups, and on May 08 she reached out to the SCI with the updated team members list asking for additional volunteers. Up to date I've not seen any additions. Nevertheless I think we could start working on the topics.
We should discuss today what the teams need to start working. Since the tasks seem to be not that "heavy" - although there may be differences between the teams - there is no "special working method" needed (charter, mailing list e.a.). Any team member could start rolling the ball with a first suggestion. But maybe someone should lead the process. From the minutes of the last meeting I thought you or Angie was taking the lead in one of the groups (motion deferrals). As you say there was no discussion initiated within all teams we should today solve this lack of communication.
I'm very happy to see Avri's proposal on the proxy voting topic. It will help the WT (and the SCI) to continue.
Looking forward to hearing you and all later
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2012 22:32 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all,
If I recall correctly, what we discussed in the first call post San Jose was breaking our entire group into sub-groups around each topic that the SCI needs to address.
These sub-groups were to be tasked with gathering the background information surrounding the topics to bring all of the members of the SCI up to speed on all of them. (So that those of us who are not well-versed on each topic would have some context within which we could consider the issues at question.)
In the second call, we discussed reaching out to the entire SCI to ask members who had not yet volunteered to any of the sub-group to ask them to do so. We also tackled one of the topics directly and moved it quite far down the field.
When I look at the agenda for tomorrow's call, I am confused about what we are doing. I know that there has been zero dialogue within the two work teams that I am noted on, so I am not sure what these teams are doing and what should be presented tomorrow.
From the agenda, it appears that we are walking down two alternative tracks simultaneously: One track to break down into sub-groups to gather the background context to enlighten and enable us to affectively address the issues at hand; the second track appears to being going straight ahead without the background and trying to resolve them.
I may be incorrect in my understanding, but I was not of an understanding that Angie and I were to be drafting language to present to the SCI.
Please clarify.
Thank you.
RA
Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
All,
For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested:
- Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP
This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
I'm not sure whether you've seen my comment on the wiki re the term "council-level NCA" vs. "non-voting NCA" Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Mai 2012 10:32 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting Anne, thank you very much for your proposed edits. From a staff perspective, we see no issues with the edits proposed and agree that these would clarify the document. We would only suggest to change "2/3 vote of the council is equal to consensus" to "where a 2/3 vote of the council demonstrates the presence of a consensus" so it tracks the language in the ICANN Bylaws. With best regards, Marika On 17/05/12 21:00, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
Please see attached redline with proposed clarifications. I still did not get a chance to look at the ByLaws as to the last nine columns. Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:26 AM To: randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
Hi Ron,
I think we are not far away from each other and hope we can find common understanding of wht we are doing.
We've broken up into subgroups for the various topics. Marika established Wikis for the subgroups, and on May 08 she reached out to the SCI with the updated team members list asking for additional volunteers. Up to date I've not seen any additions. Nevertheless I think we could start working on the topics.
We should discuss today what the teams need to start working. Since the tasks seem to be not that "heavy" - although there may be differences between the teams - there is no "special working method" needed (charter, mailing list e.a.). Any team member could start rolling the ball with a first suggestion. But maybe someone should lead the process. From the minutes of the last meeting I thought you or Angie was taking the lead in one of the groups (motion deferrals). As you say there was no discussion initiated within all teams we should today solve this lack of communication.
I'm very happy to see Avri's proposal on the proxy voting topic. It will help the WT (and the SCI) to continue.
Looking forward to hearing you and all later
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2012 22:32 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all,
If I recall correctly, what we discussed in the first call post San Jose was breaking our entire group into sub-groups around each topic that the SCI needs to address.
These sub-groups were to be tasked with gathering the background information surrounding the topics to bring all of the members of the SCI up to speed on all of them. (So that those of us who are not well-versed on each topic would have some context within which we could consider the issues at question.)
In the second call, we discussed reaching out to the entire SCI to ask members who had not yet volunteered to any of the sub-group to ask them to do so. We also tackled one of the topics directly and moved it quite far down the field.
When I look at the agenda for tomorrow's call, I am confused about what we are doing. I know that there has been zero dialogue within the two work teams that I am noted on, so I am not sure what these teams are doing and what should be presented tomorrow.
From the agenda, it appears that we are walking down two alternative tracks simultaneously: One track to break down into sub-groups to gather the background context to enlighten and enable us to affectively address the issues at hand; the second track appears to being going straight ahead without the background and trying to resolve them.
I may be incorrect in my understanding, but I was not of an understanding that Angie and I were to be drafting language to present to the SCI.
Please clarify.
Thank you.
RA
Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
All,
For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested:
- Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP
This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
I just saw it. I believe the term 'council-level NCA' was already there in the previous version, but personally I don't see any issues with changing it to 'non-voting NCA' as it indeed aligns better with the Bylaws. With best regards, Marika On 29/05/12 13:22, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
I'm not sure whether you've seen my comment on the wiki re the term "council-level NCA" vs. "non-voting NCA"
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Mai 2012 10:32 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
Anne, thank you very much for your proposed edits. From a staff perspective, we see no issues with the edits proposed and agree that these would clarify the document. We would only suggest to change "2/3 vote of the council is equal to consensus" to "where a 2/3 vote of the council demonstrates the presence of a consensus" so it tracks the language in the ICANN Bylaws.
With best regards,
Marika
On 17/05/12 21:00, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
Please see attached redline with proposed clarifications. I still did not get a chance to look at the ByLaws as to the last nine columns. Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:26 AM To: randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
Hi Ron,
I think we are not far away from each other and hope we can find common understanding of wht we are doing.
We've broken up into subgroups for the various topics. Marika established Wikis for the subgroups, and on May 08 she reached out to the SCI with the updated team members list asking for additional volunteers. Up to date I've not seen any additions. Nevertheless I think we could start working on the topics.
We should discuss today what the teams need to start working. Since the tasks seem to be not that "heavy" - although there may be differences between the teams - there is no "special working method" needed (charter, mailing list e.a.). Any team member could start rolling the ball with a first suggestion. But maybe someone should lead the process. From the minutes of the last meeting I thought you or Angie was taking the lead in one of the groups (motion deferrals). As you say there was no discussion initiated within all teams we should today solve this lack of communication.
I'm very happy to see Avri's proposal on the proxy voting topic. It will help the WT (and the SCI) to continue.
Looking forward to hearing you and all later
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2012 22:32 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all,
If I recall correctly, what we discussed in the first call post San Jose was breaking our entire group into sub-groups around each topic that the SCI needs to address.
These sub-groups were to be tasked with gathering the background information surrounding the topics to bring all of the members of the SCI up to speed on all of them. (So that those of us who are not well-versed on each topic would have some context within which we could consider the issues at question.)
In the second call, we discussed reaching out to the entire SCI to ask members who had not yet volunteered to any of the sub-group to ask them to do so. We also tackled one of the topics directly and moved it quite far down the field.
When I look at the agenda for tomorrow's call, I am confused about what we are doing. I know that there has been zero dialogue within the two work teams that I am noted on, so I am not sure what these teams are doing and what should be presented tomorrow.
From the agenda, it appears that we are walking down two alternative tracks simultaneously: One track to break down into sub-groups to gather the background context to enlighten and enable us to affectively address the issues at hand; the second track appears to being going straight ahead without the background and trying to resolve them.
I may be incorrect in my understanding, but I was not of an understanding that Angie and I were to be drafting language to present to the SCI.
Please clarify.
Thank you.
RA
Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:23 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting
All,
For the next SCI meeting the following agenda is suggested:
- Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Proxy voting explanation of the existing rules (staff) Discussion of reasons for problem with rules Discussion of possible remedies Discussion of pros and cons to modify the existing rules - Consent agenda draft available? discussion along the questions raised last meeting (see Marika's notes) - Deferral of motions draft available? (Ron/Angie) - Voting threshold rules for delaying a PDP
This may fill up a 1 hr session. We may also need a cmplete task list and think about a timeline re the various topics.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
Dear SCI members, Here are actions and brief notes from today's meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or changes. Our next call is scheduled for 31 May 2012, at 1900 UTC, 12:00 PDT, 15:00 EDT, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. Best regards, Julie Actions: 1. Julie will send the list of SCI member emails to each SCI individual member or post on the wiki if the information can remain private. 2. Each Sub-Team will develop background information and suggested solutions to its topic for the SCI to review by 24 May 2012. Notes: New Item for Discussion: Working Methods -- Level of the sub-teams -- Level of the SCI Discussion Points: -- Two possible working methods: 1) Teams gather background around each of the topics, suggest solutions and then bring that back to the full group, then discuss; 2) Based on general knowledge the full WG takes decisions. -- Important that everyone in the SCI understands the history, the sub-teams could provide it. -- Ensure that everyone has the same level of understanding. -- How to initiate the sub-teams? Gather all the email addresses of the sub-teams -- include in the Word document -- so the members can contact each other. -- Set a leader for each sub-team: Deferral of Motions: Angie Graves Proxy Voting Procedure: Wolf-Ulrich will ask Mary Wong or Carlos Aguirre GNSO Council Voting Results Table: Anne Aikman-Scalese Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP: Ron Andruff Discussion Results: Working Method: The WG agreed to continue with the Sub-Teams: These will come back with information around each topic in bullet form. Sub-Team Members: Are there others who might want to join? Add Ray Fassett to the Proxy Voting Sub-Team Timing: How much time to come up with brief input on each topic? -- One week, but have prepared one week before the next call Staff Support: Julie/Ken -- provide background on proxy voting; Julie/Glen -- add emails to list of sub-teams and post on wiki Next Meeting: Two weeks -- 31 May 2012
participants (5)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Julie Hedlund -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Marika Konings -
Ron Andruff