SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0363B.F7BC5670] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman'<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 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 Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all,
Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday’s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
*Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you,
Anne
*mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_**| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*From:*Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
*To:* 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>
*Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
*Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today’s meeting.
Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put “on hold” last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
*<image002.gif>*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_** **| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*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 *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week’s intersessional. I didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
*Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0364B.D7DBFCB0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman'<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 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 Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today¹s meeting.
Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today¹s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council¹s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
<image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi,
In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is,
As NCSG Primary, I do not support as is.
or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
For the reasons stated. Dropping #3 would be a necessary for me - this is not time to go messing with vote thresholds. Dropping #2 would be a nice to have but I would abstain. I understand the urge to go back and fix a suspected bug that got away. avri On 22-Jan-15 16:52, Julie Hedlund wrote:
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards, Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly?
Thank you,
Anne
**
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_**| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
**
* *
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all,
Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday’s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
*Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you,
Anne
*mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_ | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
*To:* 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>
*Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
*Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today’s meeting.
Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put “on hold” last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
*<image002.gif>*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_ | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*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 *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week’s intersessional. I didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
*Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi,
In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is,
As NCSG Primary, I do not support as is.
or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
For the reasons stated. Dropping #3 would be a necessary for me - this is not time to go messing with vote thresholds. Dropping #2 would be a nice to have but I would abstain. I understand the urge to go back and fix a suspected bug that got away. avri On 22-Jan-15 16:52, Julie Hedlund wrote:
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards, Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly?
Thank you,
Anne
**
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_**| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
**
* *
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all,
Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday’s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
*Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you,
Anne
*mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_ | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
*To:* 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>
*Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
*Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today’s meeting.
Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put “on hold” last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
*<image002.gif>*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_ | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*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 *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week’s intersessional. I didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
*Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03700.57C76F40] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03700.57C76F40] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman'<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 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 Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Anne, I saw your request for the meeting the first time, so no need to emphasize it. I was simply suggesting a possible more expedient way to address consensus on the letter and still meet the deadline, particularly since members agreed at the last meeting to finalize the letter on the list. I have copied the GNSO Secretariat since they set up the calls. Of course they also are on this list, so in future if you have requests for meetings you can simply request that the Secretariat should set them up. However, in the notification I will also ask the Secretariat to request that members should RSVP by COB Monday, 26 January as to whether or not they can attend the call on Tuesday as this is very late notice to get a call on people's schedules. If there is not a quorum for a call on Tuesday then you can consider whether to cancel the call prior to the meeting. I suggest this as a courtesy to avoid canceling at the beginning of a call and so that people can take it off their schedules ahead of time. I'll note also that with respect to comments on the letter I think Avi is the only one who has commented either way, and you had given COB Monday as the deadline for comments. Thus, perhaps there may be other comments forthcoming. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today¹s meeting.
Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today¹s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council¹s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
<image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hello, We will send invite out shortly with call details. Kind regards, Terri Agnew From: owner-gnso-secs@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [gnso-secs] Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Anne, I saw your request for the meeting the first time, so no need to emphasize it. I was simply suggesting a possible more expedient way to address consensus on the letter and still meet the deadline, particularly since members agreed at the last meeting to finalize the letter on the list. I have copied the GNSO Secretariat since they set up the calls. Of course they also are on this list, so in future if you have requests for meetings you can simply request that the Secretariat should set them up. However, in the notification I will also ask the Secretariat to request that members should RSVP by COB Monday, 26 January as to whether or not they can attend the call on Tuesday as this is very late notice to get a call on people's schedules. If there is not a quorum for a call on Tuesday then you can consider whether to cancel the call prior to the meeting. I suggest this as a courtesy to avoid canceling at the beginning of a call and so that people can take it off their schedules ahead of time. I'll note also that with respect to comments on the letter I think Avi is the only one who has commented either way, and you had given COB Monday as the deadline for comments. Thus, perhaps there may be other comments forthcoming. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:33 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>
, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> >, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesdays SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> >: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during todays meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put on hold last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in todays call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Councils work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 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 Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last weeks intersessional. I didnt find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3... In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg *Gregory S. Shatan * Partner | *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Julie,
Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you,
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com <AAikman@LRRLaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
*From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson *Importance:* High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
*From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> *Date: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM *To: *'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc: *Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" < gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly?
Thank you,
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com <AAikman@LRRLaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
*From:* Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org <avri@acm.org>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all,
Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday’s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
*Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you,
Anne
*[image: mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif]*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com <AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
*From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de <rickert@anwaelte.de>] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
*To:* 'Lori Schulman' <lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
*Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@icann.org>
*Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today’s meeting.
Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put “on hold” last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
*<image002.gif>*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com <AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
*From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [ mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week’s intersessional. I didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
*Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council¹s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI¹s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ³a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures²: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council¹s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a ³periodic review² by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3... U/edit?usp=sharing
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan@lawabel.com
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today¹s meeting.
Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today¹s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council¹s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
<image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 <tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi, In my response to the upcoming call notifications, which I can't attend, I made the following remark that belongs here as opposed to there:
i think it will get handled on list in any case. We are close, Mary's corrections on top of Greg's edits will probably take care of it.
Thanks avri On 23-Jan-15 18:00, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear all,
The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
- On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council’s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again.
- On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI’s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of “a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures”: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 – an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures).
- In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review – at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer.
- In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council’s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a “periodic review” by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3...
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
*Gregory S. Shatan *
Partner|* **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*666 Third Avenue **|**New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>/*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*/www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote:
Julie,
Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you,
Anne
**
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_**| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
**
* *
*From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson *Importance:* High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
*From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> *Date: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM *To: *'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> *Cc: *Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly?
Thank you,
Anne
**
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_**| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all,
Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday’s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
*Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you,
Anne
*mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_ | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
*To:* 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>
*Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
*Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today’s meeting.
Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put “on hold” last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
*<image002.gif>*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725>*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_ | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*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 *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week’s intersessional. I didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
*Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 <tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri's comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI 2. Discuss the nature of "periodic review" in the work of SCI. 3. Review draft of letter as revised. 4. AOB 5. Adjourn Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03961.E59D5A10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council's radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI's request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of "a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures": see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 - an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review - at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council's intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a "periodic review" by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3... In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03961.E59D5A10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03961.E59D5A10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman'<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 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 Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678<tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Anne, The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri¹s comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product.
My proposed agenda for the call is as follows:
1. Roll Call/ Update SOI
2. Discuss the nature of ³periodic review² in the work of SCI.
3. Review draft of letter as revised.
4. AOB
5. Adjourn
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear all,
The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
- On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council¹s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again.
- On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI¹s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ³a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures²: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures).
- In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer.
- In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council¹s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a ³periodic review² by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3... QU/edit?usp=sharing
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today¹s meeting.
Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today¹s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council¹s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
<image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 <tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Julie, I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between "immediate problems" referred by Council and "periodic review of all procedures and guidelines". As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: · On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems · On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don't think that at this point the letter really says anything other than "SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work." I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture - as in, "we just don't have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability." I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.) If so, I'll send another draft to the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri's comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI 2. Discuss the nature of "periodic review" in the work of SCI. 3. Review draft of letter as revised. 4. AOB 5. Adjourn Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council's radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI's request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of "a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures": see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 - an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review - at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council's intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a "periodic review" by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3... In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman'<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 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 Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678<tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi Anne, I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed. Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie,
I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between ³immediate problems² referred by Council and ³periodic review of all procedures and guidelines². As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER:
· On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems
· On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed)
Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call.
In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don¹t think that at this point the letter really says anything other than ³SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.² I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture as in, ³we just don¹t have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability.²
I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.)
If so, I¹ll send another draft to the list. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> >, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> >, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri¹s comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product.
My proposed agenda for the call is as follows:
1. Roll Call/ Update SOI
2. Discuss the nature of ³periodic review² in the work of SCI.
3. Review draft of letter as revised.
4. AOB
5. Adjourn
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear all,
The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
- On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> . It is therefore a topic already on the Council¹s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again.
- On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI¹s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ³a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures²: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410> an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures).
- In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer.
- In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council¹s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a ³periodic review² by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>
, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> >, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3 iQU/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP 3iQU/edit?usp=sharing>
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > wrote:
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> >, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> ] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today¹s meeting.
Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today¹s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council¹s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
<image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 <tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Dear SCI members: Per Julie, Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a modification of Greg's draft and has the following points: 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council meeting as to "friendly amendments" being on hold , but urges council to consider assigning the "Friendly amendments" project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to refer it to SCI. 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.) 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the "Voting Thresholds" issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the Council level. 4. Regarding SCI's periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report. Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid scheduling another call. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03975.5FB8FC60] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Anne, I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed. Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie, I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between "immediate problems" referred by Council and "periodic review of all procedures and guidelines". As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: · On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems · On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don't think that at this point the letter really says anything other than "SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work." I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture - as in, "we just don't have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability." I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.) If so, I'll send another draft to the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri's comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI 2. Discuss the nature of "periodic review" in the work of SCI. 3. Review draft of letter as revised. 4. AOB 5. Adjourn Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council's radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI's request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of "a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures": see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 - an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review - at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council's intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a "periodic review" by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3... In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman'<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 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 Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678<tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hello Anne and everyone, On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for ³clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments². We make this suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been on the Council¹s action list: see, e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other online means, if approved. More broadly, I¹d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention in suggesting edits to Greg¹s version of the letter, specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the SCI¹s Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a ³consistent review plan² first be developed by the SCI. Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI¹s draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the GNSO¹s policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters on hold. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear SCI members:
Per Julie, Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached.
Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a modification of Greg¹s draft and has the following points:
1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council meeting as to ³friendly amendments² being on hold , but urges council to consider assigning the ³Friendly amendments² project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to refer it to SCI.
2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.)
3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the ³Voting Thresholds² issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the Council level.
4. Regarding SCI¹s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report.
Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid scheduling another call.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Anne,
I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed.
Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie,
I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between ³immediate problems² referred by Council and ³periodic review of all procedures and guidelines². As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER:
· On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems
· On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed)
Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call.
In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don¹t think that at this point the letter really says anything other than ³SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.² I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture as in, ³we just don¹t have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability.²
I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.)
If so, I¹ll send another draft to the list. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>
, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> >, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri¹s comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product.
My proposed agenda for the call is as follows:
1. Roll Call/ Update SOI
2. Discuss the nature of ³periodic review² in the work of SCI.
3. Review draft of letter as revised.
4. AOB
5. Adjourn
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear all,
The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
- On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> . It is therefore a topic already on the Council¹s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again.
- On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI¹s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ³a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures²: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410> an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures).
- In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer.
- In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council¹s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a ³periodic review² by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>
, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> >, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> >, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP 3iQU/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5f P3iQU/edit?usp=sharing>
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > wrote:
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> >, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> > Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>
, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> , "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> " <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> >, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> ] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
> > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben > <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt > meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund > <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > > Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings > & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in > accordance with comments received during today¹s meeting. > > > > Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff > advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² last week by > Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is > part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information > as to action taken by Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until > the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today¹s call. We will be > circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our > letter and request for time on the Council¹s work schedule for Singapore > reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February > 1. > > Anne > > > <image002.gif> > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 > <tel:520.879.4725> > AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori > Schulman > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & > Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the > joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 > <tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org > <image003.jpg> > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that > is > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient > or > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please > notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message > and any > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus > free. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi, From a liaison perspective: I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter. I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make them part of the report, with or without a letter and with or without slides even (not sure when i will create slides maybe the long flight over). If there is a letter I will speak to it. If there isn't I will speak to the issues. --- As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could quibble with, but was also something I could accept. Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against the sending of letters if that is what we want to do. avri On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Anne and everyone,
On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for “clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments”. We make this suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been on the Council’s action list: see, e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other online means, if approved.
More broadly, I’d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention in suggesting edits to Greg’s version of the letter, specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the SCI’s Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a “consistent review plan” first be developed by the SCI.
Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program.
Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI’s draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the GNSO’s policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters on hold.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear SCI members:
Per Julie,
Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached.
Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a modification of Greg’s draft and has the following points:
1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council meeting as to “friendly amendments” being on hold , but urges council to consider assigning the “Friendly amendments” project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to refer it to SCI.
2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.)
3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the “Voting Thresholds” issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the Council level.
4. Regarding SCI’s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report.
Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid scheduling another call.
Thank you,
Anne
*cid:image001.gif@01D03975.5FB8FC60*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_**| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
* *
*From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] *Sent:* Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan *Cc:* Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Anne,
I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed.
Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> *Date: *Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Cc: *Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie,
I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between “immediate problems” referred by Council and “periodic review of all procedures and guidelines”. As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER:
· On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems
· On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed)
Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call.
In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don’t think that at this point the letter really says anything other than “SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.” I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture – as in, “we just don’t have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability.”
I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.)
If so, I’ll send another draft to the list.
Anne
*cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com* <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>*| **www.LRRLaw.com* <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
*From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] *Sent:* Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan *Cc:* Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call.
Best regards,
Julie
*From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> *Date: *Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Cc: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri’s comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product.
My proposed agenda for the call is as follows:
1. Roll Call/ Update SOI
2. Discuss the nature of “periodic review” in the work of SCI.
3. Review draft of letter as revised.
4. AOB
5. Adjourn
Thank you,
Anne
*cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com* <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>*| **www.LRRLaw.com* <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
* *
*From:*Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] *Sent:* Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM *To:* Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear all,
The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
- On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council’s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again.
- On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI’s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of “a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures”: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 – an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures).
- In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review – at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer.
- In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council’s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a “periodic review” by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Date: *Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> *Cc: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3...
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
*Gregory S. Shatan** *
Partner*| **Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*666 Third Avenue **|**New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*/gsshatan@lawabel.com/* <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
*ICANN-related: **gregshatanipc@gmail.com* <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *
*/www.lawabel.com/* <http://www.lawabel.com/>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote:
Julie,
Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you,
Anne
*cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) **520.629.4428* <tel:520.629.4428>*| (F) **520.879.4725* <tel:520.879.4725>
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com* <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>*| **www.LRRLaw.com* <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
* *
*From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson *Importance:* High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
*From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> *Date: *Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM *To: *'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> *Cc: *Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly?
Thank you,
Anne
*cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) **520.629.4428* <tel:520.629.4428>*| (F) **520.879.4725* <tel:520.879.4725>
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com* <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>*| **www.LRRLaw.com* <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
* *
*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all,
Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday’s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
*Avri*, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you,
Anne
*mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) **520.629.4428* <tel:520.629.4428>*| (F) **520.879.4725* <tel:520.879.4725>
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com* <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>*| **www.LRRLaw.com* <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
* *
*From:*Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM *To:* Wolf-Ulrich Knoben *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
*To:* 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>
*Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org>
*Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today’s meeting.
Separately, *and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison*, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put “on hold” last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
*<image002.gif>*
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) **520.629.4428* <tel:520.629.4428>*| (F) **520.879.4725* <tel:520.879.4725>
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com* <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>* | **www.LRRLaw.com* <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
* *
*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 *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week’s intersessional. I didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
*Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 <tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Avri, The letter was proposed so that in fact SCI could reach consensus with regard to what SCI is communicating to Council. I think Greg in particular was quite frustrated by what was communicated regarding the 10 day waiver issue last year and felt that there was actually no consensus within SCI as to the effect on resubmission of a motion. This resulted in a "no" vote from IPC and that is certainly not desirable from my point of view going forward. Like you, I am a huge fan of the consensus process used within SCI. Thus I think that it would be important for SCI members to be comfortable with the content of the report you plan to give. The fact that we have not been able to agree on the content of a letter tells me that there are still differences of opinion which have not been resolved. In fact, there is no real difference between a letter and a report - SCI should have consensus or we would end up having you report that we do not have consensus and that may simply be a waste of Council's time. One other option is simply to cancel the letter and the report and skip the opportunity to address Council in Singapore as to SCI issues since we do not in fact have a consensus regarding our work plan for 2015. That would be my recommendation at this point. I'm sure Council can use the 15 minutes. Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today's call so that should be cancelled as well. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03A0F.98C82B80] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:14 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi,
From a liaison perspective:
I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter. I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make them part of the report, with or without a letter and with or without slides even (not sure when i will create slides maybe the long flight over). If there is a letter I will speak to it. If there isn't I will speak to the issues. --- As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could quibble with, but was also something I could accept. Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against the sending of letters if that is what we want to do. avri On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote: Hello Anne and everyone, On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for "clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments". We make this suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been on the Council's action list: see, e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other online means, if approved. More broadly, I'd like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention in suggesting edits to Greg's version of the letter, specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the SCI's Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a "consistent review plan" first be developed by the SCI. Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI's draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the GNSO's policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters on hold. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear SCI members: Per Julie, Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached. Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a modification of Greg's draft and has the following points: 1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council meeting as to "friendly amendments" being on hold , but urges council to consider assigning the "Friendly amendments" project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to refer it to SCI. 2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.) 3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the "Voting Thresholds" issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the Council level. 4. Regarding SCI's periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report. Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid scheduling another call. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03975.5FB8FC60] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Anne, I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed. Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie, I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between "immediate problems" referred by Council and "periodic review of all procedures and guidelines". As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER: · On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems · On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed) Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call. In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don't think that at this point the letter really says anything other than "SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work." I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture - as in, "we just don't have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability." I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.) If so, I'll send another draft to the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri's comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product. My proposed agenda for the call is as follows: 1. Roll Call/ Update SOI 2. Discuss the nature of "periodic review" in the work of SCI. 3. Review draft of letter as revised. 4. AOB 5. Adjourn Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Dear all, The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter. - On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council's radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again. - On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI's request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of "a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures": see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 - an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures). - In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review - at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer. - In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council's intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a "periodic review" by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted. We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.) In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3... In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures). If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time. I look forward to your responses. Greg Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline. PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High Hi Anne, If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0396E.8DDF93D0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Belated apologies for missing the meeting. Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call. A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. I can not support the letter as it stands. thanks avri I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday's SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.) Thank you, Anne [mailbox:///C:/Users/Avri/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/6ebmyl35.default/Mail/Local%20Folders/0-Responsibiities.sbd/SCI?number=16975542&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Same here. Sorry! Best Thomas Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>: Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman'<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today's meeting. Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put "on hold" last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work. Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. Thanks everyone who participated in today's call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council's work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> 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 Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts Dear All, Below is the link for last week's intersessional. I didn't find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678<tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> <image003.jpg> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Anne, I'll ask the Secretariat to send the notice canceling today's call. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:16 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Avri, The letter was proposed so that in fact SCI could reach consensus with regard to what SCI is communicating to Council. I think Greg in particular was quite frustrated by what was communicated regarding the 10 day waiver issue last year and felt that there was actually no consensus within SCI as to the effect on resubmission of a motion. This resulted in a ³no² vote from IPC and that is certainly not desirable from my point of view going forward. Like you, I am a huge fan of the consensus process used within SCI.
Thus I think that it would be important for SCI members to be comfortable with the content of the report you plan to give. The fact that we have not been able to agree on the content of a letter tells me that there are still differences of opinion which have not been resolved. In fact, there is no real difference between a letter and a report SCI should have consensus or we would end up having you report that we do not have consensus and that may simply be a waste of Council¹s time.
One other option is simply to cancel the letter and the report and skip the opportunity to address Council in Singapore as to SCI issues since we do not in fact have a consensus regarding our work plan for 2015. That would be my recommendation at this point. I¹m sure Council can use the 15 minutes. Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today¹s call so that should be cancelled as well.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:14 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
From a liaison perspective:
I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter.
I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make them part of the report, with or without a letter and with or without slides even (not sure when i will create slides maybe the long flight over).
If there is a letter I will speak to it. If there isn't I will speak to the issues.
---
As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could quibble with, but was also something I could accept.
Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against the sending of letters if that is what we want to do.
avri
On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Anne and everyone,
On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for ³clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments². We make this suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been on the Council¹s action list: see, e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other online means, if approved.
More broadly, I¹d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention in suggesting edits to Greg¹s version of the letter, specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the SCI¹s Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a ³consistent review plan² first be developed by the SCI.
Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program.
Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI¹s draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the GNSO¹s policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters on hold.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear SCI members:
Per Julie, Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached.
Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a modification of Greg¹s draft and has the following points:
1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council meeting as to ³friendly amendments² being on hold , but urges council to consider assigning the ³Friendly amendments² project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to refer it to SCI.
2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.)
3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the ³Voting Thresholds² issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the Council level.
4. Regarding SCI¹s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report.
Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid scheduling another call.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Anne,
I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed.
Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie,
I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between ³immediate problems² referred by Council and ³periodic review of all procedures and guidelines². As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER:
· On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems
· On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed)
Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call.
In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don¹t think that at this point the letter really says anything other than ³SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.² I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture as in, ³we just don¹t have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability.²
I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.)
If so, I¹ll send another draft to the list. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri¹s comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product.
My proposed agenda for the call is as follows:
1. Roll Call/ Update SOI
2. Discuss the nature of ³periodic review² in the work of SCI.
3. Review draft of letter as revised.
4. AOB
5. Adjourn
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear all,
The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
- On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council¹s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again.
- On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI¹s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ³a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures²: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures).
- In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer.
- In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council¹s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a ³periodic review² by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5 fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
> > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per > the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the > call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds > like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 > <tel:520.879.4725> > AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen > de Saint Géry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? > I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had > been taken during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of > course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated > in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed > them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit > in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was > ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this > before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council > requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo > work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of > opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been > a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, > I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we > knew the results of any reorganizational review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on > Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply > them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. > > Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on > the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this > letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting > separately there.) > > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 > <tel:520.879.4725> > AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings > & Transcripts > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben > <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt > meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund > <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > > Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings > & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in > accordance with comments received during today¹s meeting. > > > > Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff > advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² last week by > Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is > part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information > as to action taken by Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until > the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today¹s call. We will be > circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our > letter and request for time on the Council¹s work schedule for Singapore > reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February > 1. > > Anne > > > <image002.gif> > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 > <tel:520.879.4725> > AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori > Schulman > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & > Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the > joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 > <tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org > <image003.jpg> > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that > is > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient > or > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please > notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message > and any > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus > free. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:16 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Avri, The letter was proposed so that in fact SCI could reach consensus with regard to what SCI is communicating to Council. I think Greg in particular was quite frustrated by what was communicated regarding the 10 day waiver issue last year and felt that there was actually no consensus within SCI as to the effect on resubmission of a motion. This resulted in a ³no² vote from IPC and that is certainly not desirable from my point of view going forward. Like you, I am a huge fan of the consensus process used within SCI.
Thus I think that it would be important for SCI members to be comfortable with the content of the report you plan to give. The fact that we have not been able to agree on the content of a letter tells me that there are still differences of opinion which have not been resolved. In fact, there is no real difference between a letter and a report SCI should have consensus or we would end up having you report that we do not have consensus and that may simply be a waste of Council¹s time.
One other option is simply to cancel the letter and the report and skip the opportunity to address Council in Singapore as to SCI issues since we do not in fact have a consensus regarding our work plan for 2015. That would be my recommendation at this point. I¹m sure Council can use the 15 minutes. Per Julie, we only have 3 people who can participate in today¹s call so that should be cancelled as well.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:14 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
From a liaison perspective:
I support the staff in their efforts as outlined in this letter.
I am quite able of taking the issues that are in the letter and make them part of the report, with or without a letter and with or without slides even (not sure when i will create slides maybe the long flight over).
If there is a letter I will speak to it. If there isn't I will speak to the issues.
---
As a primary rep, Mary's rev of Greg's letter, was something I could quibble with, but was also something I could accept.
Personally I have never seen the need for a letter, but am not against the sending of letters if that is what we want to do.
avri
On 27-Jan-15 08:28, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Anne and everyone,
On the question of friendly amendments, we (staff) suggest that a straw poll or other indicator of support from the whole SCI be taken, to indicate the level of support among the SCI for the recommendation for ³clarification of procedures for identifying and acting on friendly amendments². We make this suggestion as it does not seem to us that the SCI has fully discussed the issue, which so far has been on the Council¹s action list: see, e.g. https://community.icann.org/x/FiLxAg. This can be done via Doodle or other online means, if approved.
More broadly, I¹d like to note that (as Julie has mentioned), our intention in suggesting edits to Greg¹s version of the letter, specifically in relation to the language relating to periodic review, was not to derogate from the SCI¹s Charter; rather, our suggested edits are also taken from the Charter, where the periodic review of issues by the SCI is expressly dependent on the expectation that a ³consistent review plan² first be developed by the SCI.
Our suggested contemplated actions were also offered in view not just of the amount of ongoing work that is happening on both CWGs for the IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability, but also to take into account both the GNSO Review (for which preliminary results are not yet known) and, perhaps more importantly, the amount of work that the Council and the GNSO are also undertaking simultaneously. In addition to open public comment periods for Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Contact Data and Policy/Implementation, we are expecting an Initial Report (and public comment period) shortly from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG. We are also anticipating progress in refining the process for and launch of the Purpose of WHOIS PDP and an Issue Report on Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs. In addition to these GNSO-specific projects, the community is being asked to provide feedback on issues of interest to the GNSO such as the WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study and IDN Variants, and it can also expect public comment solicitations for data and feedback on the rights protection mechanisms in the New gTLD Program.
Julie and I therefore thought that we might offer suggestions to the SCI¹s draft letter that acknowledges that the GNSO Council is the manager of the GNSO¹s policy development process, has perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the workload of the GNSO, and has already put a couple of matters on hold.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 06:25 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear SCI members:
Per Julie, Attendance for the call tomorrow does not look good so far. We have not cancelled yet. However, if we can get agreement via the list, that is of course desirable. A new proposed draft is attached.
Will SCI members please consider the attached draft in lieu of the one modified by staff that was sent about 30 minutes ago? This redline is a modification of Greg¹s draft and has the following points:
1. This version lists the current status after the January 15 council meeting as to ³friendly amendments² being on hold , but urges council to consider assigning the ³Friendly amendments² project to SCI for commencement of work after Singapore. What this would mean is that discussion of this topic could take place during the 15 minutes tentatively scheduled for Avri on February 7 and Council would decide to either table this again or else to refer it to SCI.
2. This draft deletes the previous 10 day waiver rule item to which Avri strenuously objected and regarding which Amr disagrees with Greg as to whether the question was directly considered by SCI. (We can take up this issue in a later call since it is the subject of debate.)
3. This draft adds as Item 2 a reference to the ³Voting Thresholds² issue for possible referral to SCI that was also put on hold by Council in its January 15 meeting, but notes this is a more complicated topic which it is likely that Council will want to continue to defer until after a fuller discussion at the Council level.
4. Regarding SCI¹s periodic review responsibilities as outlined in its Charter (Item 3), the letter notes that even if no direction is received from Council at the Singapore meeting, it is still incumbent upon SCI, in accordance with its Charter, to work on a plan for periodic review to be submitted to Council and that we will do so in light of the upcoming Westlake Report.
Please supply your input as soon as possible. We would like to avoid scheduling another call.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:13 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Anne,
I've attached the letter that Mary sent to you and Lori for reference since no one on the SCI list has yet seen it. As Mary noted the revised letter is just a suggestion from staff. We would expect that the final version would reflect what you and the SCI members have agreed.
Of course we would not schedule a call when you are not available. I will let you know how the RSVPs stand later today/early tomorrow. We could look for times later tomorrow and on Wednesday (avoiding your conflict) in a Doodle if necessary.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie,
I am curious as to why the last draft you sent actually modified language taken directly from the SCI Charter approved by Council in relation to the distinction between ³immediate problems² referred by Council and ³periodic review of all procedures and guidelines². As a reminder, the bullet points below are taken DIRECTLY FROM THE CHARTER:
· On request, for those procedures and guidelines that have been identified as presenting immediate problems
· On a periodic timescale for all procedures and guidelines in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by SCI on which procedures and guidelines should be reviewed)
Although maximum participation is desirable, I am not sure we will find a mutually agreeable time. I am unavailable all day July 29 and 30 and have Policy & Implementation WG on Wednesday. Since I am signing the letter as SCI Chair, I would want to be involved in the call.
In terms of reading the current draft, we would definitely need to restore the language as it reads in the Charter. In addition, I don¹t think that at this point the letter really says anything other than ³SCI is on hold and we want you to let us know as soon as we can start work.² I have to admit to being baffled as to why the Council would want to put SCI on hold as to the question of friendly amendments. This is very unlikely to be a subject of GNSO Review. Is it possible that this was simply a sweeping gesture as in, ³we just don¹t have time to deal with this right now due to ICG deadlines for accountability.²
I see that Avri is currently on the council agenda for 15 minutes on February 7 and would suggest we ask them to move forward on the question of friendly amendments. SCI work should not stop as a result of the IANA transition. Avri, would you be comfortable asking Council to let us proceed on the subject of friendly amendments? (I think you were the only one who objected to this previously.)
If so, I¹ll send another draft to the list. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 12:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
The Secretariat has sent a reminder for SCI members to respond as to whether they can attend the call tomorrow with a deadline to reply by the end of the day today. Late today/early tomorrow we'll see how many responses we have and let you know, including which members specifically can attend. We know already that Thomas, Greg, and Avri have conflicts for the meeting. If we cannot get key participants to join the call tomorrow we'll ask the Secretariat to send out a Doodle to find a better time for a call.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Many thanks Mary. I think again that these issues and observations are worth discussing. Hopefully Stefania can participate in the call for purposes of agreeing on the letter now that we have Avri¹s comments. I am also quite interested in active participation in this letter drafting process from Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and other SCI participants if possible. We have some very fine minds and highly experienced ICANN participants on SCI. If they are available, we will have a better final product.
My proposed agenda for the call is as follows:
1. Roll Call/ Update SOI
2. Discuss the nature of ³periodic review² in the work of SCI.
3. Review draft of letter as revised.
4. AOB
5. Adjourn
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:01 PM To: Greg Shatan; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; Avri Doria; Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear all,
The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
- On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council¹s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again.
- On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI¹s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of ³a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures²: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures).
- In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer.
- In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council¹s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a ³periodic review² by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5 fP3iQU/edit?usp=sharing
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan
Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
> > Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per > the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the > call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds > like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 > <tel:520.879.4725> > AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen > de Saint Géry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair > Jonathan Robinson > > Hi, > > Belated apologies for missing the meeting. > > Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? > I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had > been taken during the call. > > A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of > course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent. > > As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated > in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed > them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit > in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was > ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this > before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council > requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo > work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of > opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been > a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, > I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue. > > I can not support the letter as it stands. > > thanks > > avri > > > > I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we > knew the results of any reorganizational review. > > On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > > Dear all, > Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on > Tuesday¹s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply > them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26. > > Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on > the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this > letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting > separately there.) > > Thank you, > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 > <tel:520.879.4725> > AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM > To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; > gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings > & Transcripts > > Same here. Sorry! > > > > Best > > Thomas > > > > Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben > <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: > > > Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt > meeting. > > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM > > To: 'Lori Schulman' <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org> ; Julie Hedlund > <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > > Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <mailto:Glen@icann.org> > > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings > & Transcripts > > > > Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in > accordance with comments received during today¹s meeting. > > > > Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff > advised today that certain SCI matters were put ³on hold² last week by > Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is > part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information > as to action taken by Council affecting its work. > > > > Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until > the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely. > > > > Thanks everyone who participated in today¹s call. We will be > circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our > letter and request for time on the Council¹s work schedule for Singapore > reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February > 1. > > Anne > > > <image002.gif> > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > (T) 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 > <tel:520.879.4725> > AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/> > > > > > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori > Schulman > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM > To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & > Transcripts > > > > Dear All, > > > > Below is the link for last week¹s intersessional. I didn¹t find the > joint letter re GNSO review posted separately. > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553 > > > > Lori > > > > Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714P 703-575-5678 > <tel:703-575-5678> · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org > <image003.jpg> > > > > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that > is > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient > or > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please > notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message > and any > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus > free. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee > or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information > transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is > intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended > recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, > 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the "periodic review" responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply "tweak" the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics - 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff's modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to "periodic review", the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its "periodic review" work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri's report is as follows: (a) under the "immediate review" responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the "friendly amendments" issue that was put "on hold" by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03A2B.C98118B0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Dear Anne, Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction. Lori Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> [cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0] From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:00 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the "periodic review" responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply "tweak" the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics - 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff's modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to "periodic review", the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its "periodic review" work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri's report is as follows: (a) under the "immediate review" responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the "friendly amendments" issue that was put "on hold" by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne [cid:image003.gif@01D03A48.C138DD10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
Hi, Excuse me, why do you assume that you can write a letter, have a single call and call that consensus? avri On 27-Jan-15 14:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
To all SCI members and to Staff,
To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following:
1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the “periodic review” responsibility delineated in the Charter.
2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply “tweak” the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter.
3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics – 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue.
4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff’s modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in.
5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council.
As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points:
1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.)
2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to “periodic review”, the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its “periodic review” work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations.
3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri’s report is as follows:
(a) under the “immediate review” responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the “friendly amendments” issue that was put “on hold” by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue?
(b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council?
The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability.
Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not.
Anne
**
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
*_AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com>_**| www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
**
* *
*From:*Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter:
*"Reporting*
At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning:
* The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline"
Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Avri, it may be helpful for you to listen to the mp3 recording of the call. Certainly I considered your comments after the call as reflecting a lack of consensus and have tried to be respectful of that view. The draft letter was sent out on the Friday before the call. We did not hear back from you on that. The mp3 of the call speaks for itself with regard to the degree of agreement from those participating. This does not take away from the fact that you did not agree and so we tried to resolve differences on the list subsequent to the call. I personally tried to do so by eliminating the two items you specifically objected to in order to try to meet the deadline. Again, my suggestion is that as primary, you listen to the mp3 from January 20 and perhaps also consult with Stefania about that call. I realize you are extremely busy with ICANN commitments and we certainly respect your role as Council liaison. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03A62.39612C20] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:26 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, Excuse me, why do you assume that you can write a letter, have a single call and call that consensus? avri On 27-Jan-15 14:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the "periodic review" responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply "tweak" the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics - 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff's modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to "periodic review", the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its "periodic review" work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri's report is as follows: (a) under the "immediate review" responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the "friendly amendments" issue that was put "on hold" by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03A62.39612C20] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
I’m just trying to keep up with and would like to suggest the following: 1.. Council report: don’t go to those details of how items are dealt with by different participants! Just highlight the items, the status and timeline of discussion and the advantage the council (and the GNSO) may take from resolving the item. Otherwise doubts may arise regarding the SCI capability to deal with the tasks. 2.. Letter to council: I have doubts that asking the council through a letter would advance the work flow. I see a better chance to highlight the items – which have to be agreed in advance on the SCI list – together with the report in Singapore and make sure they are taken to the council action item list if a response is requested. It would be even better to make suggestions to the council what tasks the SCI is going to deal with. Obviously this needs SCI consensus in advance. But if we don’t achieve consensus here no clear guidance from the council can be expected – since the basic structure of both entities. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:59 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; 'Avri Doria' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert ; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the “periodic review” responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply “tweak” the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics – 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff’s modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to “periodic review”, the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its “periodic review” work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri’s report is as follows: (a) under the “immediate review” responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the “friendly amendments” issue that was put “on hold” by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: a.. The issues dealt with and related status b.. Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council c.. An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. Agree with point 1 and of course point 2 is of course why we circulated a draft letter and held the January 20 call. You note "It wold be even better to make suggestions to the council what tasks the SCI is going to deal with" Could we have your thoughts on this? Thank you, Anne From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson I'm just trying to keep up with and would like to suggest the following: 1. Council report: don't go to those details of how items are dealt with by different participants! Just highlight the items, the status and timeline of discussion and the advantage the council (and the GNSO) may take from resolving the item. Otherwise doubts may arise regarding the SCI capability to deal with the tasks. 1. Letter to council: I have doubts that asking the council through a letter would advance the work flow. I see a better chance to highlight the items - which have to be agreed in advance on the SCI list - together with the report in Singapore and make sure they are taken to the council action item list if a response is requested. It would be even better to make suggestions to the council what tasks the SCI is going to deal with. Obviously this needs SCI consensus in advance. But if we don't achieve consensus here no clear guidance from the council can be expected - since the basic structure of both entities. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:59 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; 'Avri Doria'<mailto:avri@acm.org> ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> ; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> ; Glen de Saint Géry<mailto:Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson To all SCI members and to Staff, To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following: 1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the "periodic review" responsibility delineated in the Charter. 2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply "tweak" the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter. 3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics - 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue. 4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff's modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in. 5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council. As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points: 1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.) 2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to "periodic review", the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its "periodic review" work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations. 3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri's report is as follows: (a) under the "immediate review" responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the "friendly amendments" issue that was put "on hold" by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue? (b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council? The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability. Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03AE8.E39FD1B0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter: "Reporting At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning: * The issues dealt with and related status * Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council * An activity timeline" Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi, Some comments in-line below: On Jan 24, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The policy staff supporting the SCI thought it might be helpful to add what we hope are clarifying comments to the ongoing discussion, which relate to three of the four topics highlighted in the draft letter.
- On #1 (Friendly Amendment to Motions), this is actually one of the potential topics for referral that the Council has temporarily put on hold following its last meeting on 15 January; see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items. It is therefore a topic already on the Council’s radar as a possible topic for referral to the SCI; as such, we wonder if, for this paragraph, rather than recommending action the SCI may wish to request that the Council inform it (perhaps through the liaison) at the point when the Council takes up consideration of the issue again.
Yup. That sounds right. However, if there is a desire to ask the GNSO council to green-light the SCI starting work on this, I don’t mind.
- On #3 (Review of WG Consensus Levels), we note from the language of the October 2014 GNSO Council resolution (which passed the three latest SCI recommendations unanimously) that the Council had expressly agreed to consider the SCI’s request for a review of the Consensus Levels, and further expressly noted that this exercise may be conducted as part of “a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures”: see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201410 – an exercise which the current draft letter lists as topic #4 (Review of GNSO Operating Procedures).
- In addition, the SCI has previously discussed (and staff had thought the SCI had agreed) that such a broad review should not occur independently of or without reference to the ongoing GNSO Review – at a minimum, we assume this means that any review to be initiated on the GNSO Operating Procedures would not take place till after the type and nature of the final recommendations from the GNSO Review are clearer.
That was my understanding as well. I don’t see why we should be bringing this up at the time being, considering we previously agreed to postpone picking this up until after the full GNSO review is concluded. I thought that that was where we left things on this point during last week’s call as well.
- In light of the above points on #3, #4 and the GNSO Review, we therefore respectfully suggest that #3 be reworded to more accurately reflect the GNSO Council’s intent as noted above; #4 refer expressly to the GNSO Review rather than a “periodic review” by the SCI, and perhaps the final paragraph be reworked if these suggestions are adopted.
+1 Thanks. Amr
We thought we ought to offer these suggestions at this time in order to provide further context and background for those SCI members who were not part of the Los Angeles discussion and/or who missed the last SCI call, so that the SCI can decide how it wishes to proceed in respect of the draft letter. In particular, given that we were able only to issue invitations for the next meeting at a time when Europe and Asia would have ended their work week, we hope that these comments are helpful.
Cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 14:04 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3...
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Julie, Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you, Anne
<image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards, Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly? Thank you, Anne
<image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review. On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all, Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday’s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you, Anne
<image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today’s meeting.
Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put “on hold” last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1. Anne
<image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week’s intersessional. I didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<image001.gif>
Hi, Regarding the language on point #2, I don’t think this is at all accurate. Currently, it says: “Last year, acting on an SCI recommendation, the Council amended the Operating Procedures to allow for waivers of the 10-day motion submission deadline under certain circumstances. The question whether the new 10-day waiver rule applies to resubmitted motions was not directly considered by SCI and we recommend that this be reviewed and clarified.” I would like to revisit this issue, and believe that the 10-day rule waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, but to say that this was not considered by the SCI is simply not true. It was considered and discussed over months on both teleconference and on-list discussions. If I recall correctly, we even had suggested language circulated to the SCI list as far back as March 2014 to address this that the SCI did directly consider, then opted not to adopt in its recommendation to the council months later. I do wish we got this the first time around, but would prefer to explain why we didn’t previously adopt it, and simply recommend that we pick it up again some time this year. Thanks. Amr On Jan 23, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
We may yet be able to resolve this on the list. (Perhaps a scheduled meeting will further inspire us to do so.)
In that spirit, I attach a revised version of the letter, which is also available as an editable Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N2_MB5-K8u2SVTdTi2EnAvIuVCzPpFQb7FsM5fP3...
In response to Avri, I note that these 4 items were phrased as "possibilities" for the entire 2015 year, which leaves the question open of where in the year any of these items should be handled I've added language to clarify that items 3 and 4 should await the results of the GNSO Review. On point number 2, I've tried to clarify the remaining issue a bit (the language of the actual Operating Procedures remains ambiguous, and the language put into the motion to "fix" the situation is not in the actual Operating Procedures).
If this meets Avri's concerns and the approval of all, we can send this out and give ourselves back an hour of our time.
I look forward to your responses.
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan Partner | Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote: Julie,
Although I think everyone preferred to finalize via the list, there was no one expressing disagreement to the proposed changes as Avri has done. As far as I know, Avri is still the primary and I do not believe that addressing her issues on the list is going to result in meeting the deadline.
PLEASE ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR THE CALL NEXT TUESDAY AS REQUESTED. I would appreciate your doing this today.
Thank you,
Anne
<image001.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Importance: High
Hi Anne,
If I recall correctly I think some people raised concerns on the call that they would not be available next week and also that it was a very busy time for various constituencies as they prepare for Singapore. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you could encourage people to provide their thoughts on the list. In particular, it would be helpful if each primary member could indicate whether he or she supports the letter as is, or if not, suggest changes that would enable them to support it.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:01 PM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert@anwaelte.de>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Avri. Shall we schedule a call on January 27 to discuss? As per the mp3, we did not have any disagreement on these points during the call, but we can certainly set up a call January 27 to discuss. Sounds like we need to do that. Will staff please proceed accordingly?
Thank you,
Anne
<image001.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:11 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Thomas Rickert'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
Belated apologies for missing the meeting.
Was there a consensus call on the four issues that are being included? I know we have not done one on the list and was wondering if one had been taken during the call.
A council liaison I would like to know that for my report. I will of course faithfully faithfully any letter the SCI wishes sent.
As a primary member I have doubts on whether I would have participated in a positive consensus on these four items, though I might have allowed them to pass without comment. Specifically on #3, I have been explicit in not supporting a review of consensus levels while the GNSO review was ongoing. I also do not see the point of #2, as we could have done this before but opted not to. So while I would understand the council requesting such a comment, I do not understand the SCI asking to redo work it already did and has had accepted. Yes we had a difference of opinion on whether to include resubmitted notions and that may have been a good reason to withhold our recommendation. But since we went ahead, I do not understand the SCI asking to reopen this issue.
I can not support the letter as it stands.
thanks
avri
I have always been against, number 3, for example until such time as we knew the results of any reorganizational review.
On 22-Jan-15 14:07, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Dear all,
Please see attached the revised letter to GNSO Council based on Tuesday’s SCI conference call. If you have any comments, please supply them to the list prior to 1300 UTC Monday, January 26.
Avri, again, as Council liaison for SCI, we are requesting 15 minutes on the schedule for Working Sessions in Singapore for you to present this letter to Council. (I am unable to attend and SCI will not be meeting separately there.)
Thank you,
Anne
<image001.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:32 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Lori Schulman; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Same here. Sorry!
Best
Thomas
Am 21.01.2015 um 09:44 schrieb WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Sorry all that I missed the call! I came back late after the Frankfurt meeting.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:16 PM
To: 'Lori Schulman' ; Julie Hedlund ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Many thanks Lori. We will revise the draft letter to GNSO Council in accordance with comments received during today’s meeting.
Separately, and specifically directed at Avri as Council liaison, staff advised today that certain SCI matters were put “on hold” last week by Council. (Thanks Mary for this info.) Staff also advised that it is part of the function of Council liaison to provide SCI with information as to action taken by Council affecting its work.
Amr mentioned that GNSO Council meeting minutes are not available until the next GNSO Council meeting and as such, may not be timely.
Thanks everyone who participated in today’s call. We will be circulating the redraft of the letter soon. We want to be sure our letter and request for time on the Council’s work schedule for Singapore reaches Council in a timely fashion and preferably well before February 1.
Anne
<image002.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:11 PM To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] NCPH Intersessional 2015 Recordings & Transcripts
Dear All,
Below is the link for last week’s intersessional. I didn’t find the joint letter re GNSO review posted separately.
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416553
Lori
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image003.jpg>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<SCI-LettertoRobinson26JAN2015.docx>
participants (9)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Amr Elsadr -
Avri Doria -
Greg Shatan -
Julie Hedlund -
Lori Schulman -
Mary Wong -
Terri Agnew -
WUKnoben