RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual
I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.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, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _____ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Anne and Ron, As I mentioned in the chat room today, under the GNSO Improvements Process, the PDP-WT (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/PDP-WT+Home), as part of the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), was tasked with "reviewing the existing PDP in the Bylaws and recommending changes to the community and Council based on an open community WG approach to the deliberative process." The WT produced a Final Report in September 2011 -- https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405500/PDP-WT+Updated+Fina l+Report+-+FINAL+-+28+September+2011.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=13172015 88000 that included the PDP Manual. The PDP Manual was adopted and is incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures as Annex 2 of the Procedures. Under its original charter, the SCI "will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council." As the PPSC and PDP-WT created the PDP Manual, it would appear to be in scope for the SCI to consider requests for changes to the PDP Manual along the lines stipulated in the Charter, as follows: * On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems * On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed) I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:43 PM To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.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, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
It appears to me that Mikey's current issue arising in connection with PDP may then in fact be "in scope". Anne [cid:122544222@04062013-06C8]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:21 PM To: Ron Andruff; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Anne and Ron, As I mentioned in the chat room today, under the GNSO Improvements Process, the PDP-WT (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoppsc/PDP-WT+Home), as part of the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), was tasked with "reviewing the existing PDP in the Bylaws and recommending changes to the community and Council based on an open community WG approach to the deliberative process." The WT produced a Final Report in September 2011 -- https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405500/PDP-WT+Updated+Fina... — that included the PDP Manual. The PDP Manual was adopted and is incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures as Annex 2 of the Procedures. Under its original charter, the SCI "will be responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of recommendations provided by the Operational Steering Committee (OSC), Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and Policy Development Process Work Team (PDP-WT) and approved by the GNSO Council." As the PPSC and PDP-WT created the PDP Manual, it would appear to be in scope for the SCI to consider requests for changes to the PDP Manual along the lines stipulated in the Charter, as follows: * On request for those recommendations that have been identified to present immediate problems * On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed) I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Julie From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:43 PM To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.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, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne <!--[if !vml]-->[cid:122544222@04062013-06CF]<!--[endif]-->Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.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, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Thanks Marika, very helpful. I assume the group that worked on Charter revision did so with reference to these planned projects? Anne [cid:332165922@04062013-06D6]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:47 PM To: Ron Andruff; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.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, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne <!--[if !vml]-->[cid:332165922@04062013-06DD]<!--[endif]-->Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Anne, I supported that group and I think they were aware of the scope of the charter vis-a-vis the projects, although I did not present the list that Marika has provided to them. Avri was in that drafting team, so perhaps she might wish to comment. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:59 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Thanks Marika, very helpful. I assume the group that worked on Charter revision did so with reference to these planned projects? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete theoriginal message. From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:47 PM To: Ron Andruff; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" <AAikman@lrlaw.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.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, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> From:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> . Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Thank you Marika and Julie for these important clarifications. Indeed, this is something that needs serious consideration by all Committee members prior to our next meeting. Thanks also to Mikey for flagging this on our last call, otherwise needed consideration may have slipped by us. I encourage all Committee members to bring their thoughts to the list. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 18:47 To: Ron Andruff; 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff < <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" < <mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com> AAikman@lrlaw.com>, Julie Hedlund < <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> julie.hedlund@icann.org>, " <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> 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, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP . Suite 700 One South Church Avenue . Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 . Fax (520) 879-4725 <mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> AAikman@LRLaw.com . <http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. _____ From: <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> 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 Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com From: <mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _____ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to <http://www.lewisandroca.com/> www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
One thought I have is that the work project list must be compared directly to the revised draft Charter. [cid:789255321@05062013-00E9]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:45 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Thank you Marika and Julie for these important clarifications. Indeed, this is something that needs serious consideration by all Committee members prior to our next meeting. Thanks also to Mikey for flagging this on our last call, otherwise needed consideration may have slipped by us. I encourage all Committee members to bring their thoughts to the list. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 18:47 To: Ron Andruff; 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'; Julie Hedlund; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual Maybe I can shed some light as well. The SCI Charter foresees that 'For the periodic review of recommendations, the SCI is expected to develop a consistent review plan indicating items to be reviewed, proposed timeline as well as additional resources needed, if any. This review plan will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its information'. This also includes the PDP Manual and related Bylaw provisions. In the PDP-WT Final Report, the WT recommended that 'the periodic assessment of the overall PDP process is important, noting that a certain threshold of completed PDPs should be met before an overall review is carried out'. The revised PDP was adopted by the ICANN Board in December 2011. It may be worth noting though that, to date, no PDP has been completely run under the new rules. Julie developed the attached list of adopted recommendations and status a while back that should give you a better idea which other recommendations currently fall under the SCI's remit for periodic review (note, that the status of some of these needs to be updated). Best regards, Marika From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> Date: Tuesday 4 June 2013 23:43 To: "'Aikman-Scalese, Anne'" <AAikman@lrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised SCI - PDP Manual I have to admit, Anne, that this is something that I, too, am unfamiliar with. Perhaps Julie can assist us with some institutional memory? Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.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, June 4, 2013 17:38 To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Could someone please clarify for me what we are supposed to do in evaluating the effectiveness of the changes in By-Laws and Operating Procedures in relation to adoption of the PDP Manual? This strikes me as a very large task that someone thinks is "in-scope" and could affect how we treat this Charter issue. Anne [image001.gif@01CE614B]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Dear all, I would welcome working through this document online to craft a revised Charter that indeed reflects the current SCI mandate. In that regard, I would also welcome a deeper discussion on the issue that Mikey raised on the call, i.e., the substantive change from polishing implementation issues from the last GNSO review versus continuing to do this work on issues that arise within the Council or from Working Groups. I understand from the BC and other constituencies, as well as from the GNSO Chair, that there is an expectation that the SCI continue to serve but I personally am agnostic. Having said that, those of us who have been on the SCI for some time will also recognize that we have been called on to deal with more current issues than those that came from implementation. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 16:16 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Revised SCI Charter 04 June 2013 Importance: High Dear SCI members, Attached is the SCI Charter as revised during the SCI meeting on 04 June 2013. The changes from today's meeting were grammatical corrections in the General and Working Method sections. The other changes that are redlined and the comments are those proposed by the SCI Charter Drafting Team, and the inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair election process as previous discussed and agreed to by the SCI. Please send any comments to the list and this item will be on the agenda for the next SCI meeting that will be scheduled in July based on the Doodle poll. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
hi all, newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now. here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter? possible answers -- we're trying to: -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. thanks, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi Mikey, I think the Charter revisions fall into the category of "do something else, to accomplish the following goals." The goal is to update the charter because it does not have a procedure for selection of the chair and vice-chair, and make other updates. Perhaps a bit of background will be helpful. Last fall Wolf-Ulrich announced that he would step down as Chair to allow someone new to take his place, since he had been Chair since the establishment of the SCI in April 2011. This meant that the SCI had to hold an election for Chair and it found that there were no procedures for such an election in the SCI Charter. After agreeing to a procedure, an election was held in December 2012 that resulted in Ron being elected as Chair and Avri taking the post of Vice-Chair. (This is reflected in meeting agendas for 2012 on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/1.+Meetings, and in the meeting notes/actions in the email archive.) In December (20 December meeting) the SCI, having realized the need to update the Charter to include the election process and terms for the Chair and Vice Chair, asked staff to include the changes in a revised Charter. The SCI discussed the revised charter on the list and in the meetings on 09 January, 23 January, and 06 February. The changes were agreed to by the SCI, but it noted that the Charter may require other updates so it asked for volunteers for a Charter Revision Drafting Team at the meeting on 20 February. The following SCI members volunteered for the Drafting Team: Avri Doria, Angie Graves, James Bladel, J.Scott Evans, and Wolf-Urich Knoben. J.Scott agreed to lead the group. They had a couple of meetings and drafted an updated version of the Charter that was presented to the SCI prior to the Beijing meeting. That version is the one currently circulating, with additional changes concerning consensus discussed in the call on 22 May and the minor grammatical changes discussed on the call on 04 June. Other SCI members may wish to provide their thoughts about the goal of the Charter update, particularly those who were on the Drafting Team. Best regards, Julie On 6/6/13 12:11 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi, To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up. I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now avri On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Mikey, I think Avri summed up my views, and those of most SCI members as well. Julie's comments add a little more context to the matter. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 15:53 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? Hi, To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up. I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now avri On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Unfortunately I have no views since J. Scott was spearheading for IPC and I was not involved. So I am also at "Square 1" on this effort, but certainly recognize the need to at least update the Charter to do the work that everyone seems to be expecting at this point. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:12 AM To: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? Mikey, I think Avri summed up my views, and those of most SCI members as well. Julie's comments add a little more context to the matter. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff RNA Partners www.rnapartners.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 15:53 To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? Hi, To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up. I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups. But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now avri On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
thanks Avri and Julie, your posts are really helpful. what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind. one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. mikey On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi Mickey, I'll defer to the SCI members concerning a "sunset" clause, but I'll point out that as Avri noted (and I think Marika also pointed out) the SCI is to undertake periodic process reviews on those processes that were initiated in the GNSO improvements process. The charter says, "On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)." Those reviews have not occurred nor have they been defined. It may be that language needs to be included that sets a specific timeframe for these process reviews. Best regards, Julie On 6/7/13 4:16 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
thanks Avri and Julie,
your posts are really helpful.
what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind.
one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long.
mikey
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
hi Julie, yep -- that's what i'm thinking too. otherwise i can imagine this "project close out" committee going on forever. going on forever is fine if we're transforming into a standing rules committee, but not consistent with the direction i'm picking up from the posts in this thread. m On Jun 7, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Mickey,
I'll defer to the SCI members concerning a "sunset" clause, but I'll point out that as Avri noted (and I think Marika also pointed out) the SCI is to undertake periodic process reviews on those processes that were initiated in the GNSO improvements process. The charter says, "On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)." Those reviews have not occurred nor have they been defined. It may be that language needs to be included that sets a specific timeframe for these process reviews.
Best regards, Julie
On 6/7/13 4:16 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
thanks Avri and Julie,
your posts are really helpful.
what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind.
one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long.
mikey
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed basis through the course of time. Ray -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? thanks Avri and Julie, your posts are really helpful. what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind. one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. mikey On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that
need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have
wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but
it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not
agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just
because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the
Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather
than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@goto.jobs> wrote:
It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed basis through the course of time.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
thanks Avri and Julie,
your posts are really helpful.
what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind.
one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long.
mikey
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that
need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have
wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but
it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not
agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just
because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the
Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather
than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Well remember the SCI can only make recommendations to the Council with regards to changes to its operating procedures. Or is this no longer true? To my knowledge, the Council has to approve any changes to its own operating procedures no different than when they had to formally approve/adopt the new operating procedures they are working under now. Does this help? Ray -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 5:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@goto.jobs> wrote:
It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed basis through the course of time.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
thanks Avri and Julie,
your posts are really helpful.
what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind.
one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long.
mikey
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms
that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have
wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but
it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do
not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just
because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in
the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather
than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
That makes sense. What does the Charter revision say about this? I think it says Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. Are the WG Guidelines part of the Operating Procedures? I'm pretty sure the PDP Manual is a part of the Operating Procedures. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ray Fassett Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 3:41 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? Well remember the SCI can only make recommendations to the Council with regards to changes to its operating procedures. Or is this no longer true? To my knowledge, the Council has to approve any changes to its own operating procedures no different than when they had to formally approve/adopt the new operating procedures they are working under now. Does this help? Ray -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 5:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@goto.jobs> wrote:
It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed basis through the course of time.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
thanks Avri and Julie,
your posts are really helpful.
what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind.
one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long.
mikey
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms
that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have
wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but
it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do
not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just
because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in
the Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather
than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
My own view is that if GNSO did not see SCI as a resource for new issues, they never would have asked us to address: 1. suspension of a PDP (already done at GNSO request) or 2. resubmission of a motion (working on this now at GNSO request) So in general my feeling is we are responding to current requests forwarded on motion from the GNSO and that the Charter should likely reflect the work they expect from us (while pointing out this is different from the original Charter). This is why I thought we should be careful to look at the work list before us that Julie recently provided. It is not clear to me that GNSO intends SCI to take requests directly from GNSO chartered Working Groups on a ongoing basis, but based on their current practice, it appears GNSO wants to be able to make requests of SCI from time to time. I guess my assumption about this has been that the word "Standing" in the description of the Committee makes them think of SCI as an available resource to the Council. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@goto.jobs> wrote:
It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed basis through the course of time.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
thanks Avri and Julie,
your posts are really helpful.
what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind.
one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long.
mikey
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that
need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have
wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but
it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not
agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just
because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the
Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather
than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
To add my two cents to this, the SCI was indeed created as a 'Standing Committee' to address any issues resulting from the implementation of the recommendations related to the GNSO review as well as to be responsible for a periodic review of those adopted recommendations. The focus to date has mainly been on issues that occurred as a result of the implementation revised Operating Procedures, including the WG Guidelines and PDP Manual, as most felt that the discussions on periodic reviews should start once most of these recommendations would have been operation for at least a certain amount of time in order to obtain useful data / information to identify the success and/or shortcomings. As for any WG / Committee / DT, any recommendations need to be submitted to the GNSO Council for approval. In the case of changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, these are subject to a public comment period of at least 21 days prior to consideration by the GNSO Council. With best regards, Marika On 07/06/13 15:54, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
My own view is that if GNSO did not see SCI as a resource for new issues, they never would have asked us to address:
1. suspension of a PDP (already done at GNSO request) or 2. resubmission of a motion (working on this now at GNSO request)
So in general my feeling is we are responding to current requests forwarded on motion from the GNSO and that the Charter should likely reflect the work they expect from us (while pointing out this is different from the original Charter). This is why I thought we should be careful to look at the work list before us that Julie recently provided.
It is not clear to me that GNSO intends SCI to take requests directly from GNSO chartered Working Groups on a ongoing basis, but based on their current practice, it appears GNSO wants to be able to make requests of SCI from time to time. I guess my assumption about this has been that the word "Standing" in the description of the Committee makes them think of SCI as an available resource to the Council.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP Suite 700 One South Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:30 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
ah! a puzzle! i love those.
i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit?
in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter.
one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done.
another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea.
is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland?
mikey
On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@goto.jobs> wrote:
It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed basis through the course of time.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
thanks Avri and Julie,
your posts are really helpful.
what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through the draft with this in mind.
one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long.
mikey
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms that
need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC.
Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might have
wanted to go beyond clean-up.
I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, but
it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals.
I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do not
agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered working groups.
But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now
avri
On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just
because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list right now.
here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in the
Charter?
possible answers -- we're trying to:
-- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to
accomplish the following goals
-- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals
-- do something else, to accomplish the following goals
i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather
than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone.
thanks,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.
Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
uh oh. this thread is splitting into separate ones. so i'll just whack the whole thing and start with a blank slate. this is really helpful discussion. i like Ray's historical perspective, Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there and Marika's recap of the task at hand. part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP" topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a stretch from a scope standpoint. i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea to push back on that one a bit. what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that remit and how things get submitted to us for review. we also need make sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident. mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Mickey, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben brought from the Council to the SCI on 21 December 2012 (via email to the SCI list) the request to look at the issue of resubmitting a motion as a result of discussions during the Council meeting on 20 December. Best regards, Julie On 6/7/13 8:10 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
uh oh. this thread is splitting into separate ones. so i'll just whack the whole thing and start with a blank slate.
this is really helpful discussion. i like Ray's historical perspective, Anne's points about the work that's in front of us and how it got there and Marika's recap of the task at hand.
part of the reason i asked the question in the first place is because while i understand (and relate strongly to) the "suspension of a PDP" topic, i found our "resubmission of a motion" work a little more of a stretch from a scope standpoint.
i'm wondering whether we took that second one on just because we were asked -- and, in a perfect world, whether it might have been a good idea to push back on that one a bit.
what's emerging from this for me is this -- if we're a temporary thing that's aimed at dealing with problems arising from the implementations of the GNSO review we need to get clearer on what's in and outside of that remit and how things get submitted to us for review. we also need make sure that we don't become a standing GNSO rules committee by accident.
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
participants (7)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Avri Doria -
Julie Hedlund -
Marika Konings -
Mike O'Connor -
Ray Fassett -
Ron Andruff