My vote (also as an Alternate for the ISPCP) is for Option 1. Regards Tony From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: 14 August 2012 16:39 To: Ron Andruff Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; gnso-secs@icann.org; Julie Hedlund; Nathalie Peregrine Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions My vote (but only as Alternate SCI member for the BC) is Option 1. Thank you, Angie On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote: SCI colleagues, This email is in response to the Chairman's request that I prepare a proposal for us to 'vote' on to resolve the discussion around deferral of motions. Many thanks to Julie Hedlund for her work in preparing this for your review. As we discussed during our most recent meeting this past Thursday, Aug. 9th, we seem to be coalescing around couple of ways to address the issue of deferral of motions. As you may recall, the issue was whether to create a rule in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to limit how many times a motion may be deferred. Staff provided statistics from 2010 and 2011 on the number of deferrals. The SCI members seem to agree that the numbers were not high and did not suggest abuse. Conversations on the wiki (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Deferral+of+Motions) suggest two ways the SCI could recommend that the GNSO Council could address this issue: 1. A light touch approach, i.e. request Staff to monitor deferred motions for one year and present the results to the SCI. At that time, the SCI will once again analyze the results, decide whether deferrals are being abused, and whether a change to the Procedures is warranted; or 2. Recommend to the GNSO Council a change to the Procedures that sets a limit on the number of deferrals. The limit would be 1 deferral and the issue that was deferred would be the first item on the following GNSO Council agenda. We would now like to see if we can reach a consensus on one or the other of these two recommendations to the GNSO Council on Deferral of Motions. Please indicate on the list your preference for one of these two options (if not in agreement, suggest a third option for SCI members to consider). Thank you for your assistance in helping us move item this to completion. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:24 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 09 August 2012 Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place in three weeks' time, on the 30th August 2012. Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 09 August 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120809-en.mp3 on page Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug Attendees Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Constituency - Primary Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate Apology: Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary Mary Wong - Non-Commercial Users Constituency - Primary Jonathan Robinson - Registry Stakeholder Group - Alternate Krista Papac - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Primary Marika Konings Staff: Julie Hedlund Nathalie Peregrine Please let me know if your name has been left off the list. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine for GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> gnso-secs@icann.org AC Chat transcript 09 August 2012 Nathalie Peregrine:SCI meeting - 09 August 2012 Julie Hedlund:Hello Nathalie! Ron A:Greetings all! Ron A:Thanks for this, Ray... Amusing that a member of our work team got called on that... ;o) Ray Fassett:oops :) Ron A:Apologies for the background noise, unfortunately I cannot escape the fact there is another caller close by at this time. Ron A:+1 Julie; no motion needed Ron A:15 - love Ron A:@ Angie: Indeed. This language opens the door... Ron A:@ Julie: that makes sense to me Ron A:Let's take this back to Council Ray Fassett:thanks Wolf Ron A:Thanks all!

Thanks Ron, My preference is for Option 1. Best, Alain On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>wrote:

** ** ** ** ** ** **

SCI colleagues,****

** **

This email is in response to the Chairman’s request that I prepare a proposal for us to ‘vote’ on to resolve the discussion around deferral of motions. Many thanks to Julie Hedlund for her work in preparing this for your review.****

** **

As we discussed during our most recent meeting this past Thursday, Aug. 9 th, we seem to be coalescing around couple of ways to address the issue of deferral of motions. As you may recall, the issue was whether to create a rule in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to limit how many times a motion may be deferred. Staff provided statistics from 2010 and 2011 on the number of deferrals. The SCI members seem to agree that the numbers were not high and did not suggest abuse. Conversations on the wiki (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Deferral+of+Motions) suggest two ways the SCI could recommend that the GNSO Council could address this issue:****

** **

1. A light touch approach, i.e. request Staff to monitor deferred motions for one year and present the results to the SCI. At that time, the SCI will once again analyze the results, decide whether deferrals are being abused, and whether a change to the Procedures is warranted; or ****

** **

2. Recommend to the GNSO Council a change to the Procedures that sets a limit on the number of deferrals. The limit would be 1 deferral and the issue that was deferred would be the first item on the following GNSO Council agenda.****

** **

We would now like to see if we can reach a consensus on one or the other of these two recommendations to the GNSO Council on Deferral of Motions. Please indicate on the list your preference for one of these two options (if not in agreement, suggest a third option for SCI members to consider). ****

** **

Thank you for your assistance in helping us move item this to completion.* ***

** **

Kind regards,****

** **

RA****

** **

Ronald N. Andruff****

RNA Partners, Inc.****

************************** **

**** ------------------------------

*From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nathalie Peregrine *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2012 2:24 AM *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 09 August 2012****

** **

Dear All,****

** **

*The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place in three weeks’ time, on the 30th August 2012.*

** **

Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on *Thursday, 09 August 2012* at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120809-en.mp3 on page ** **

** **

Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on:****

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug****

** **

*Attendees *****

****

Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary****

Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate****

**J. Scott Evans** - Intellectual Property Constituency – Primary ****

Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC Alternate****

Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary****

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary ****

James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate****

** **

*Apology:*

* *

Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary ****

Mary Wong – Non-Commercial Users Constituency - Primary****

Jonathan Robinson – Registry Stakeholder Group - Alternate****

Krista Papac - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Primary****

Marika Konings****

* *

*Staff:*

Julie Hedlund****

Nathalie Peregrine****

** **

Please let me know if your name has been left off the list.****

Let me know if you have any questions.****

** **

Thank you.****

Kind regards,****

Nathalie Peregrine for****

** **

GNSO Secretariat****

gnso-secs@icann.org****

** **

*AC Chat transcript 09 August 2012*

** **

Nathalie Peregrine:SCI meeting - 09 August 2012****

Julie Hedlund:Hello Nathalie!****

Ron A:Greetings all!****

Ron A:Thanks for this, Ray... Amusing that a member of our work team got called on that... ;o)****

Ray Fassett:oops :)****

Ron A:Apologies for the background noise, unfortunately I cannot escape the fact there is another caller close by at this time.****

Ron A:+1 Julie; no motion needed****

Ron A:15 - love****

Ron A:@ Angie: Indeed. This language opens the door...****

Ron A:@ Julie: that makes sense to me****

Ron A:Let's take this back to Council****

Ray Fassett:thanks Wolf****

Ron A:Thanks all!****

** **

** **

-- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger

I support option 2. Krista Papac General Manager, Policy & Industry Affairs AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Email: krista.papac@ausregistry.com<mailto:krista.papac@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 6:32 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Nathalie Peregrine' Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions SCI colleagues, This email is in response to the Chairman's request that I prepare a proposal for us to 'vote' on to resolve the discussion around deferral of motions. Many thanks to Julie Hedlund for her work in preparing this for your review. As we discussed during our most recent meeting this past Thursday, Aug. 9th, we seem to be coalescing around couple of ways to address the issue of deferral of motions. As you may recall, the issue was whether to create a rule in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to limit how many times a motion may be deferred. Staff provided statistics from 2010 and 2011 on the number of deferrals. The SCI members seem to agree that the numbers were not high and did not suggest abuse. Conversations on the wiki (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Deferral+of+Motions) suggest two ways the SCI could recommend that the GNSO Council could address this issue: 1. A light touch approach, i.e. request Staff to monitor deferred motions for one year and present the results to the SCI. At that time, the SCI will once again analyze the results, decide whether deferrals are being abused, and whether a change to the Procedures is warranted; or 2. Recommend to the GNSO Council a change to the Procedures that sets a limit on the number of deferrals. The limit would be 1 deferral and the issue that was deferred would be the first item on the following GNSO Council agenda. We would now like to see if we can reach a consensus on one or the other of these two recommendations to the GNSO Council on Deferral of Motions. Please indicate on the list your preference for one of these two options (if not in agreement, suggest a third option for SCI members to consider). Thank you for your assistance in helping us move item this to completion. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ________________________________ 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 Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:24 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Mp3 and attendance: Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation 09 August 2012 Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place in three weeks' time, on the 30th August 2012. Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 09 August 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120809-en.mp3 on page Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug Attendees Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Constituency - Primary Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate Apology: Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary Mary Wong - Non-Commercial Users Constituency - Primary Jonathan Robinson - Registry Stakeholder Group - Alternate Krista Papac - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Primary Marika Konings Staff: Julie Hedlund Nathalie Peregrine Please let me know if your name has been left off the list. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine for GNSO Secretariat gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> AC Chat transcript 09 August 2012 Nathalie Peregrine:SCI meeting - 09 August 2012 Julie Hedlund:Hello Nathalie! Ron A:Greetings all! Ron A:Thanks for this, Ray... Amusing that a member of our work team got called on that... ;o) Ray Fassett:oops :) Ron A:Apologies for the background noise, unfortunately I cannot escape the fact there is another caller close by at this time. Ron A:+1 Julie; no motion needed Ron A:15 - love Ron A:@ Angie: Indeed. This language opens the door... Ron A:@ Julie: that makes sense to me Ron A:Let's take this back to Council Ray Fassett:thanks Wolf Ron A:Thanks all!

To Avri's question, there has been some discussion on this within the RySG which I bring forth below for our discussion: ------------------------------------------------------- It is unlikely that a decision will be any easier to make a year from now and dealing with the issue now would probably be more efficient in terms of resource usage because of the recent work of the SC. Therefore, [we] don't like option 1. Option 1 might actually reduce the number of deferral requests during the year it's under review, but that doesn't solve the potential for abuse later on. But [we] don't like option 2 either...too rigid...okay setting a limit of one deferral as long as there is an exception procedure; for example, one deferral request shall be automatically allowed unless a simple majority of Councilors from both houses overrule it and no additional deferrals shall be allowed except by a simple majority vote of both houses. We can count on there being special circumstances where exceptions are appropriate so it is necessary to allow for them and to do so in a way that requires reasonable Council support. Why it is necessary to make the deferred item first on the next agenda? It makes sense to put the item early in the agenda so as to minimize the chance of it not being handled because of an agenda that cannot be completed. There are always administrative items that need to be handled first. Also, sometimes certain Councilors, Staff or guests have to join the call late or leave the call early, so there needs to be some flexibility to manage such situations...suggest language like this: "A deferred item should be put as early in the next agenda as possible with goals to maximize Councilor and other key player participation and to minimize the chances of there not being enough time to act on the item." ------------------------------------------------------ I hope to be able to discuss these points on the list or next teleconference. Ray -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:02 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions Thought I had sent this a while ago, but sent it from an unsubscribed address. --- against option 2 --- Can live with status quo But I do not understand why it was narrowed down to just these two alternatives when so much more was discussed. avri

Ray and all, Speaking to the issue of 'first thing on the agenda', it is understood to be the first matter taken up after any administrative and other issues are discussed. The point being, as you rightly noted, that the deferred motion is in fact discussed at the next meeting following the deferral. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ray Fassett Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:54 AM To: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions To Avri's question, there has been some discussion on this within the RySG which I bring forth below for our discussion: ------------------------------------------------------- It is unlikely that a decision will be any easier to make a year from now and dealing with the issue now would probably be more efficient in terms of resource usage because of the recent work of the SC. Therefore, [we] don't like option 1. Option 1 might actually reduce the number of deferral requests during the year it's under review, but that doesn't solve the potential for abuse later on. But [we] don't like option 2 either...too rigid...okay setting a limit of one deferral as long as there is an exception procedure; for example, one deferral request shall be automatically allowed unless a simple majority of Councilors from both houses overrule it and no additional deferrals shall be allowed except by a simple majority vote of both houses. We can count on there being special circumstances where exceptions are appropriate so it is necessary to allow for them and to do so in a way that requires reasonable Council support. Why it is necessary to make the deferred item first on the next agenda? It makes sense to put the item early in the agenda so as to minimize the chance of it not being handled because of an agenda that cannot be completed. There are always administrative items that need to be handled first. Also, sometimes certain Councilors, Staff or guests have to join the call late or leave the call early, so there needs to be some flexibility to manage such situations...suggest language like this: "A deferred item should be put as early in the next agenda as possible with goals to maximize Councilor and other key player participation and to minimize the chances of there not being enough time to act on the item." ------------------------------------------------------ I hope to be able to discuss these points on the list or next teleconference. Ray -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:02 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposal for Deferral of Motions Thought I had sent this a while ago, but sent it from an unsubscribed address. --- against option 2 --- Can live with status quo But I do not understand why it was narrowed down to just these two alternatives when so much more was discussed. avri