Avri, your interpretation seems to be as written. I wonder whether there was a specific idea behind. Is this what we wanted when we drafted the charter: excluding the SGs/Cs from "requesting an issue" directly? I'm just raising questions. As there is not yet any controversial case there may be no urgency to solve one. 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 17:19 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI meeting agenda Hi, Just checking my interpretation of: <<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.>> This means that issues can be brought by: - the g-council itself - a Working Group - a drafting team - a CWG chartered by the g-council - any sort of group/team that the g-council has chartered It does not include SG/C, as they are chartered by the Board and not the g-council. If a SG/C wants to bring an item to the SCI, they must take it to the g-council first. If so, then what we are asking ALAC to do is not different than what we would ask any SG/C to do. But if the JAS or any of the other CWG's were to bring the issue, that would be ok. Do I interpret this as others would? avri