AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne [cid:896032016@19062012-2684]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.
The SCI Charter notes that 'For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. As such, it currently does not foresee requests from individuals. A way around it could be to inform the GNSO Council when a request from an individual has been received and ask whether there are any objections from the GNSO Council for the SCI to consider the specific issue, but this may be something the SCI wants to discuss with the GNSO Council to make sure that they are comfortable with this procedure. With regard to the issue raised by Evan, it related to the SOI. He noted that 'question in #9 is so broad and vague as to allow for people to avoid listing conflicts that are extremely relevant to ICANN transparency and accountability. It should be split into three discrete parts: 9) Do you own, hold stock in, work for, participate in an advisory capacity, or contract to a) Any ICANN contracted parties? b) Any organization providing professional services to any ICANN contracted parties? c) Any organization presently applying to be an ICANN contracted party?' Of course, the SCI could also elect to keep this recommendation on file to be further considered in conjunction with a general review of the SOI and/or GNSO Operating Procedures. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> To: "'KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:'KnobenW@telekom.de>'" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne [cid:896032016@19062012-2684]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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 theoriginal message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.
Thanks Marika for the details. I think we could discuss the procedural question in our meeting on Sunday, and I'll inform the council about. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 10:53 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda The SCI Charter notes that 'For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. As such, it currently does not foresee requests from individuals. A way around it could be to inform the GNSO Council when a request from an individual has been received and ask whether there are any objections from the GNSO Council for the SCI to consider the specific issue, but this may be something the SCI wants to discuss with the GNSO Council to make sure that they are comfortable with this procedure. With regard to the issue raised by Evan, it related to the SOI. He noted that 'question in #9 is so broad and vague as to allow for people to avoid listing conflicts that are extremely relevant to ICANN transparency and accountability. It should be split into three discrete parts: 9) Do you own, hold stock in, work for, participate in an advisory capacity, or contract to a) Any ICANN contracted parties? b) Any organization providing professional services to any ICANN contracted parties? c) Any organization presently applying to be an ICANN contracted party?' Of course, the SCI could also elect to keep this recommendation on file to be further considered in conjunction with a general review of the SOI and/or GNSO Operating Procedures. With best regards, Marika From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>> To: "'KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:'KnobenW@telekom.de>'" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "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: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne [cid:731370109@20062012-20AC]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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 theoriginal message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.
The charter reads: <<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>> Request from individuals is not included. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne [cid:945584808@20062012-20A5]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.
My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council. Krista Papac General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Email: krista.papac@ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM To: AAikman@lrlaw.com; marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda The charter reads: <<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>> Request from individuals is not included. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.
Hi, Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc. One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue. But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter. avri Krista Papac <Krista.Papac@ausregistry.com> wrote:
My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.
Krista Papac General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Email: krista.papac@ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM To: AAikman@lrlaw.com; marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
The charter reads: <<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
Request from individuals is not included.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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.
________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO
What do others mean?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.
With best regards,
Marika
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
All:
this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:
- Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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 think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council would be what is covered by the rules. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi, Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc. One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue. But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter. avri Krista Papac <Krista.Papac@ausregistry.com> wrote:
My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.
Krista Papac General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Email: krista.papac@ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM To: AAikman@lrlaw.com; marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
The charter reads: <<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
Request from individuals is not included.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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.
________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO
What do others mean?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.
With best regards,
Marika
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
All:
this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:
- Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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 think that "a group chartered by the GNSO" must refer to a working group or other team with an adopted GNSO charter. It does not appear to me on the surface that this phrase refers to a constituency. I doubt SCI wants to become involved in taking direct requests from constituencies rather than from the GNSO directly or from working groups chartered by the GNSO which are composed of members from more than one constituency and/or stakeholder group. 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: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:10 AM To: avri@acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda I think the initiative through ALAC-Alan (council liaison)-GNSO council would be what is covered by the rules. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 16:33 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi, Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc. One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue. But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter. avri Krista Papac <Krista.Papac@ausregistry.com> wrote:
My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.
Krista Papac General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Email: krista.papac@ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM To: AAikman@lrlaw.com; marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
The charter reads: <<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
Request from individuals is not included.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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.
________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s c@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO
What do others mean?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.
With best regards,
Marika
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
All:
this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:
- Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.
---------------------- 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
It makes sense to me, Avri, that the ALAC would use its Council liaison to bring an issue to the SCI. Krista Papac General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Email: krista.papac@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistry.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:33 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi, Assuming none of the SG/Cs wish to take up the issue as their own (I have not consulted with mine yet), another possibility is that ALAC, using its liaison status with the g-council, bring up the issue of SOI (CoI) with the g-council itself. The g-council could then send the issue to the SCI, ignore it, or find some other approach. Alternatively, ALAC could request an issues report on the subject of SOI/CoI in GNSO policy making etc. One thing the GNSO should probably avoid, especially during this time of ICANN introspection concerning conflicts of interest, is ignoring the issue. But I agree we should handle this within the rules established by our charter. avri Krista Papac <Krista.Papac@ausregistry.com> wrote:
My initial reaction is we should stick with what's in the Charter and take requests from the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.
Krista Papac General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Email: krista.papac@ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:55 AM To: AAikman@lrlaw.com; marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
The charter reads: <<For items that are submitted for review 'on request', the SCI expects to receive detailed input from the group affected by the process/operational change concerned. Such requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council.>>
Request from individuals is not included.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 18:20 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Does the charter not define where the issues come from? I would think it would have to be limited by the charter. Anne
[cid:image001.gif@01CD4EB4.19BB2F70]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<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://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.
________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-s c@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:18 AM To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO
What do others mean?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri,
Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions.
With best regards,
Marika
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: "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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda
All:
this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC:
- Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://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 support your recommended way forward, Wolf-Ulrich. Thanks, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:18 PM To: marika.konings@icann.org; avri@acm.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Personally my first reaction would be: we should handle it practically and with flexibility. Don't start amending the rules unless it is imperative. Flexibility could mean that the SCI - for a certain period of time (eg 1 year) monitors how many issues are raised by individuals/groups not covered by the charter. In case it exceeds a certain volume of requests (depending on the workload) the SCI may strictly return to the rules as written and not accept further requests from outside - for the a.m. period of time the SCI may discuss all issues raised and make recommendations/suggestions re the issues in scope - re Evan's SOI related issue I recall - if I'm right - that he was questioning the sense of some of the points asked for in the SOI. I think we should first find out whether his issue was more ALAC specific than relevant to the GNSO What do others mean? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juni 2012 14:47 An: Avri Doria; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi Wolf, Avri, Under AOB, you might also want to cover the update to the GNSO Council which is scheduled for Prague. In addition to getting clarification on who should be responsible for putting out SCI recommendations for public comments (also of relevance in relation to the item on consensus items), there is also this issue with regard to who may raise issues with the SCI. As you may recall, Evan Leibovitch raised a suggestion with regard to the SOI. There may be other questions / suggestions that individuals may make in the future relating to GNSO Improvements topics. However, the SCI charter says 'requests can be made by either the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council'. Should individual requests be directed to the GNSO Council for referral, or should there be another mechanism? It might be good to get clarification on this as well so it can be made clear to those that have proposals / questions. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda All: this is the suggested agenda for the SCI call on Monday June 18, 13:00 UTC: - Roll call - Statement of Interests - Approval of the agenda - Background information (and suggested solutions) on - Deferral of Motions - Proxy Voting Procedure - Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP - Consensus items: GNSO Council Voting Results Table, Consent Agenda - AOB: next meeting, F2F in Prague? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Avri Doria -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Krista Papac -
Marika Konings -
Ron Andruff