SCI Chair's Report to Council
Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair's report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry - not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a "straw poll" on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the "periodic review" element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI's "periodic review" responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a "periodic review" recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03F6D.6B431D10] 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03F6D.6B431D10] 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: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.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>> Cc: 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 Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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 Anne, Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll. Mary and I think it will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet expressed an opinion. Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out because some SCI members may not be aware of this that there is a GNSO group already tasked to review the Westlake report. That group is the GNSO Review Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe. See the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org'" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: SCI Chair's Report to Council
Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4.
Lori and I are finalizing the Chair¹s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.)
1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a ³straw poll² on the topic of friendly amendments.
With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete.
Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the ³periodic review² element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI¹s ³periodic review² responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a ³periodic review² recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls.
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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on 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 | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair¹s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting.
Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don¹t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?
Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made.
Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne
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 should correct the deadline for responses to Thursday February 5 20:00 UTC - (as Feb 4 is Weds.) I appreciate knowing about the task assigned in relation to review of the Westlake report. My observation is simply that SCI should read it before commencing any work on developing a plan for periodic review. To clarify, I am not implying in any way that SCI should itself be the reviewer of the Westlake Report. Cheers, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03FA4.604AB6C0] 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, February 03, 2015 8:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org' Cc: Mary Wong Subject: Re: SCI Chair's Report to Council Importance: High Dear Anne, Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll. Mary and I think it will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet expressed an opinion. Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out - because some SCI members may not be aware of this - that there is a GNSO group already tasked to review the Westlake report. That group is the GNSO Review Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe. See the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.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>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: SCI Chair's Report to Council Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair's report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry - not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a "straw poll" on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the "periodic review" element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI's "periodic review" responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a "periodic review" recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03FA4.604AB6C0] 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03FA4.604AB6C0] 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: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.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>> Cc: 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 Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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.
I agree with the questions proposed. It would be helpful to see the context/report when/if it becomes available. Angie On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Thanks Julie. I should correct the deadline for responses to *Thursday February 5 20:00 UTC* – (as Feb 4 is Weds.)
I appreciate knowing about the task assigned in relation to review of the Westlake report. My observation is simply that SCI should read it before commencing any work on developing a plan for periodic review. To clarify, I am not implying in any way that SCI should itself be the reviewer of the Westlake Report.
Cheers,
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:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:12 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org' *Cc:* Mary Wong *Subject:* Re: SCI Chair's Report to Council *Importance:* High
Dear Anne,
Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll. Mary and I think it will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet expressed an opinion.
Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out — because some SCI members may not be aware of this — that there is a GNSO group already tasked to review the Westlake report. That group is the GNSO Review Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe. See the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> *Date: *Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org'" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> *Cc: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> *Subject: *SCI Chair's Report to Council
*Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4.*
Lori and I are finalizing the Chair’s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry – not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.)
1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a “straw poll” on the topic of friendly amendments.
With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete.
Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the “periodic review” element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI’s “periodic review” responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a “periodic review” recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls.
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:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org *Cc:* Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on 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 <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 <julie.hedlund@icann.org>] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org *Cc:* Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations.
Best regards,
Julie
*From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> *Date: *Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM *To: *'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" < gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> *Cc: *Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Avri,
Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting.
Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don’t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?
Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made.
Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list.
Anne
------------------------------
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 Angie. Please see attached report. Many thanks to staff, Vice Chair Lori, and former Chair Ron for their assistance in preparing these slides. Hopefully we will get more responses to the two questions in the “straw poll” in the next day. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0409D.87A78410] 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: angie12345@gmail.com [mailto:angie12345@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 3:29 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Mary Wong Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: SCI Chair's Report to Council I agree with the questions proposed. It would be helpful to see the context/report when/if it becomes available. Angie On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Thanks Julie. I should correct the deadline for responses to Thursday February 5 20:00 UTC – (as Feb 4 is Weds.) I appreciate knowing about the task assigned in relation to review of the Westlake report. My observation is simply that SCI should read it before commencing any work on developing a plan for periodic review. To clarify, I am not implying in any way that SCI should itself be the reviewer of the Westlake Report. Cheers, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0409D.87A78410] 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: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>' Cc: Mary Wong Subject: Re: SCI Chair's Report to Council Importance: High Dear Anne, Thank you very much for initiating the straw poll. Mary and I think it will help to elicit responses from those SCI members who have not yet expressed an opinion. Staff also thought it would be helpful to point out — because some SCI members may not be aware of this — that there is a GNSO group already tasked to review the Westlake report. That group is the GNSO Review Working Party, chaired by Jen Wolfe. See the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GR2/GNSO+Review+2014+Home. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:19 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.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>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: SCI Chair's Report to Council Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair’s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry – not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a “straw poll” on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the “periodic review” element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI’s “periodic review” responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a “periodic review” recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0409D.87A78410] 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0409D.87A78410] 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: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.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>> Cc: 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 Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don’t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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, I think 1 and 2 would be good recommendations to include in the letter. Like I said before though, I would appreciate it if the context on why we want to now raise the issue of 10-day rule waivers’ applicability to resubmitted motions be presented as clearly as possible. I’d be glad to help with that, if needed. Thanks. Amr On Feb 3, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4.
Lori and I are finalizing the Chair’s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry – not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.)
1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a “straw poll” on the topic of friendly amendments.
With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete.
Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the “periodic review” element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI’s “periodic review” responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a “periodic review” recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls.
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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. 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: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations.
Best regards, Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting.
Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don’t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?
Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made.
Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne
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.
Both 1 and 2 should be addressed. Greg On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
*Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4.*
Lori and I are finalizing the Chair’s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry – not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.)
1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work?
With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a “straw poll” on the topic of friendly amendments.
With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete.
Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the “periodic review” element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI’s “periodic review” responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a “periodic review” recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls.
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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','AAikman@LRRLaw.com');>** | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org');> *Cc:* Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','AAikman@LRRLaw.com');>** | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
*From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','julie.hedlund@icann.org');>] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org');> *Cc:* Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations.
Best regards,
Julie
*From: *<Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','AAikman@lrrlaw.com');>> *Date: *Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM *To: *'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>>, " gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org');>" < gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org');>> *Cc: *Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Glen@icann.org');>> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Avri,
Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting.
Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don’t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?
Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made.
Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list.
Anne
------------------------------
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.
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *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/>*
I support the SCI considering these questions. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original-Nachricht----- Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Datum: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:32:14 +0100 Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> An: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Both 1 and 2 should be addressed. Greg On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com [1]> wrote: Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair’s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry – not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a “straw poll” on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the “periodic review” element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI’s “periodic review” responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a “periodic review” recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. 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 [2] From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on 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 | www.LRRLaw.com [3] From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don’t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ------------------------- 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. -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 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 [4] ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com [5] www.lawabel.com [6] Links: ------ [1] mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com [2] http://www.lrrlaw.com/ [3] http://www.lrrlaw.com/ [4] mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com [5] mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com [6] http://www.lawabel.com/
I support the SCI considering these questions. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:19 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund' ; 'Avri Doria' ; mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: 'Mary Wong' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair’s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry – not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a “straw poll” on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the “periodic review” element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI’s “periodic review” responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a “periodic review” recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. 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 From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on 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 | www.LRRLaw.com From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don’t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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, In addition to Angie (BC), Amr (NCUC), Wolf-Ulrich(ISPCP), and Greg(IPC), I have had NPOC communication from Lori off-list in response to the two questions below. (Have asked Lori to respond on the list for the record.) Will constituencies/stakeholders who have not directly responded to the two questions in the SCI straw poll below please do so before the beginning of the GNSO Council Working Sessions on Saturday? This includes NCSG, RrSG, RySG, and Nom Com. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D04164.44F42390] 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 5:20 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org' Cc: 'Mary Wong' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Importance: High Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair's report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry - not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a "straw poll" on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the "periodic review" element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI's "periodic review" responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a "periodic review" recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D04164.44F42390] 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D04164.44F42390] 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: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.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>> Cc: 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 Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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.
For the record, I agree that we should address both issues. Lori Schulman On Feb 5, 2015, at 7:12 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Dear SCI Members, In addition to Angie (BC), Amr (NCUC), Wolf-Ulrich(ISPCP), and Greg(IPC), I have had NPOC communication from Lori off-list in response to the two questions below. (Have asked Lori to respond on the list for the record.) Will constituencies/stakeholders who have not directly responded to the two questions in the SCI straw poll below please do so before the beginning of the GNSO Council Working Sessions on Saturday? This includes NCSG, RrSG, RySG, and Nom Com. 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<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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 5:20 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; 'gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>' Cc: 'Mary Wong' Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Chair's Report to Council Importance: High Dear SCI members, please provide your informal responses to the two questions below by 20:00 UTC on Thursday February 4. Lori and I are finalizing the Chair’s report to Council. Staff has prepared some draft slides for this purpose and we will be making minor edits. For purposes of completing these edits, it would be helpful for each member to weigh in on the two questions below. (Please note this is an informal inquiry – not a formal Consensus Call since these topics do not involve a formal SCI recommendation to Council.) 1. In connection with the question of establishing a procedure for friendly amendments in the Council Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? 2. In connection with the question of considering the application of the 10 day waiver rule to resubmission of motions in the Operating Procedures, should SCI undertake this work? With respect to Question 1, I have not heard any disagreement or objection in the January 20 call or on the list, but Mary Wong is very concerned that only three people have provided comment and feels it is quite important for SCI to have the results of a “straw poll” on the topic of friendly amendments. With respect to Topic 2, I understand that both Greg and Amr believe this topic should be addressed, but Avri does not. Again, there is concern that comment from three SCI members is incomplete. Regarding other topics discussed in the January call and on the list since that time, I believe it is clear that those topics come under the “periodic review” element in our Charter and require at a minimum (1) Review and discussion of the Westlake Report and (2) formulation of a proposed plan under the SCI’s “periodic review” responsibilities as to which we will need formal consensus for the purpose of making a recommendation to Council. I would like to suggest that SCI work toward adopting such a “periodic review” recommendation under its Charter in time for the Buenos Aires meeting but realize that others may have different thoughts. This can be explored further in future calls. 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<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:07 AM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. 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<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.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>> Cc: 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 Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don’t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ 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 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.
participants (8)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Amr Elsadr -
Angie Graves -
Greg Shatan -
Julie Hedlund -
Lori Schulman -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de -
WUKnoben