Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Dear Anne, I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan. Thank you for your time on this. Angie On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org> wrote:
Dear Anne,
Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction.
Lori
*Lori S. Schulman* · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org [image: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0]
*From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:00 PM *To:* 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
To all SCI members and to Staff,
To be clear, I am certainly not against Avri delivering a report on SCI work in Singapore and will certainly try to participate remotely. I think this report should note the following:
1. In its call of January 20 and on the list thereafter, SCI considered the subjects of (1) friendly amendments, (2) effect of 10 day waiver rule on resubmission of motions, (3) review of WG Consensus Guidelines, and (4) overall review of procedures and guidelines under the “periodic review” responsibility delineated in the Charter.
2. We believed after our call on January 20 that consensus was obtained and did not schedule another call at that time. It was thought we could simply “tweak” the draft letter to Council that was presented prior to the January 20 call. There was no disagreement expressed on the call about the basic points to be covered in the letter.
3. It later became apparent that Avri, who was unable to attend the January 20 call, disagreed with mentioning at least two of the suggested topics – 10 day waiver rule and review of WG Consensus Guidelines. Amr also disagreed with the statement that SCI had not directly considered this issue.
4. The Chair modified the letter to remove the two sources of objection listed in 3. and asked for further input. Staff suggested further modifications which were sent to the list. The Chair disagreed with staff’s modifications and the liaison mostly agreed with them but no other SCI members weighed in.
5. Only three SCI members responded positively to the invitation to another call for January 27 to resolve the issues. Thus, the call was cancelled and no consensus was reached on the letter to Council.
As Chair, I would boil the outstanding substantive disagreement regarding the letter as expressed on the list down to two points:
1. Although there was no specific disagreement expressly voiced by any SCI member during the January 20 call with respect to bringing up the topic of friendly amendments, staff recommended that a straw poll be conducted to determine if this was really what SCI wanted to say given that Council had put this issue on hold. In my view, Avri should simply ask Council whether they still feel this issue needs to be on hold or whether SCI can help address it (not increasing the workload of Council, but actually helping to reduce that workload.)
2. Everyone on SCI agrees that with respect to “periodic review”, the results of the GNSO Review are quite relevant. Staff apparently takes the position that SCI should do nothing until GNSO directs its “periodic review” work plan after seeing the final results of GNSO Review. The Council Liaison appears to agree with this approach. The SCI Chair believes that after the meeting in Singapore, SCI should (a)review the results of the Westlake Report and schedule calls to begin work on a clearly delineated proposed plan (with timelines) under the periodic review responsibility contained in the Charter and should not sit idle while GNSO reviews the final recommendations.
3. Thus, my proposal for the request for direction from Council to be made in the course of the delivery of Avri’s report is as follows:
(a) under the “immediate review” responsibility in the Charter, should SCI study the “friendly amendments” issue that was put “on hold” by Council in its January 15 meeting or wait for further deliberations by Council on this issue?
(b) Should SCI members read the Westlake Report when it comes out and begin work on a proposed periodic review plan to be submitted to Council for approval or do nothing regarding a proposed plan for periodic review until further direction from Council?
The SCI Chair observes that staff is quite appropriately concerned about the Council (and corresponding staff) workload, but respectfully suggests that the work to be done is on the part of SCI, not Council, and that SCI should not sit idle during the IANA transition since its work forms a positive aspect of ICANN accountability.
Thanks to all for their thoughts by reply to all. Obviously if GNSO Council directs SCI to sit idle and do nothing pending the final recommendations from GNSO Review, that means we have nothing to do until further direction is received from Council. We will count on Avri to tell us after the meeting in Singapore whether we have anything to do or not.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
*Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
*One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
*(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>*
*AAikman@LRRLaw.com <AAikman@LRRLaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
*From:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org <julie.hedlund@icann.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:46 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
Staff notes the following from the SCI Charter:
*"Reporting*
At a minimum at every public ICANN meeting, the SCI Chair shall provide the GNSO Council with an update concerning:
- The issues dealt with and related status - Recommendations expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council - An activity timeline"
Thus, a report is a requirement in the Charter.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
Hi, I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time. I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being run. And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided. SCI has always been a deliberative body. We discuss things more that once and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a meeting. Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in one meeting. This seems like a excellent practices. And while in the past that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may make such a practice necessary. As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion. As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter. Or perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report. thanks avri On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote:
Dear Anne,
I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan.
Thank you for your time on this.
Angie
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>> wrote:
Dear Anne,
Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction.
Lori
* *
Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to Council. Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to “never make a decision in one meeting”. We can certainly discuss this within SCI on our next call. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03A64.92D99CE0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:44 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time. I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being run. And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided. SCI has always been a deliberative body. We discuss things more that once and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a meeting. Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in one meeting. This seems like a excellent practices. And while in the past that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may make such a practice necessary. As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion. As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter. Or perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report. thanks avri On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote: Dear Anne, I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan. Thank you for your time on this. Angie On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>> wrote: Dear Anne, Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction. Lori ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi, I will just followup with a few remarks. Probably no more that a few minutes. I would say that your report be no longer than 10 minutes with time for questions. Thank you for reclaiming your repsonsiblity for this report. I am grateful that we were reminded of our charter. Would probably do for those of us who haven't read in a while to reread it. I will do so before the meeting to make sure we are strictly adhering to its guidance. Wouldn't do for us to be advising others on process when we ourselves are not quite kosher in our practices. As for the no decision in one meeting practice. You call it a protocol. I called it a common practice, and perhaps even common sense, used in many groups, but nowhere codified. Personally I first started using the practice back when we were doing the weekly calls to find consensus on the new gTLD program. Many have used it since then. I am surprised that no WG or other you participated in, used the technique. But in any case, it is a voluntary practice. We never did it explicitly in SCI, because previous chairs were careful to be deliberate and make sure there was enough bottom-up discussion to develop a position before a decision was made. This generally takes a few meetings. Often members have to go back to their constituencies before they can give final approval. That is a lesson you yourself have shown by example on many occasions. I understand the enthusiasm of a new chair to make the trains run on time, but the SCI is supposed to be slow, plodding and deliberative. Our role is essentially conservative, only touching and fixing that which needs to be fixed. We are not here to craft new ways of doing things, just to help out when something is not working right. Sure we should do the best we can to cover eventualities when asked to deal with an issue, but opening an issue just becasue someone thought of a new posbility that might be significant someday, may be stretching our mission. And as Mary's note indicated, several of the points in your letter seemed to be contrary to prior positions of the group. It is fine to change direction, but that should only be done after the previous opinion is explored and understood and the group reaches new consensus. Thanks avri On 27-Jan-15 21:18, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to Council.
Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to “never make a decision in one meeting”. We can certainly discuss this within SCI on our next call.
Anne
Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair’s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don’t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair¹s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting.
Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don¹t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?
Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made.
Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03AEA.8A786A50] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hello all one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that¹s shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest. This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council¹s further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings. If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that if the final version is agreed on the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. We hope this suggestion is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair¹s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting.
Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don¹t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?
Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made.
Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Mary, Based on what I am seeing on the list, this schedule will be entirely too ambitious and rushed. As previously mentioned, I am out of commission both Thursday and Friday (speaking at AIPLA mid-winter). We have previously agreed on ten minutes for the Chair's report and questions and 5 minutes for Avri's comments as liaison. In the mean time, we are soliciting further comments on the list as to each member's views on the topics. There will only be 2 or 3 slides and they will be based on the feedback received on the list. These do not need to be turned in by February 1 based on past practice. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03B02.4EB2ABD0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hello all - one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that's shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest. This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council's further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings. If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that - if the final version is agreed on- the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. We hope this suggestion is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03B02.4EB2ABD0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
To clarify, I am participating remotely. I will not be physically present in Singapore. Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> [cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0] From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 3:57 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Mary, Based on what I am seeing on the list, this schedule will be entirely too ambitious and rushed. As previously mentioned, I am out of commission both Thursday and Friday (speaking at AIPLA mid-winter). We have previously agreed on ten minutes for the Chair's report and questions and 5 minutes for Avri's comments as liaison. In the mean time, we are soliciting further comments on the list as to each member's views on the topics. There will only be 2 or 3 slides and they will be based on the feedback received on the list. These do not need to be turned in by February 1 based on past practice. Thank you, Anne [cid:image003.gif@01D03B13.8FD6C9A0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hello all - one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that's shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest. This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council's further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings. If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that - if the final version is agreed on- the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. We hope this suggestion is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image003.gif@01D03B13.8FD6C9A0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
That's okay Lori - thought you were coming for some reason. I am fine giving the Chair's report remotely. Will plan to set my alarm. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03B04.0FBA4D00] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Mary Wong'; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson To clarify, I am participating remotely. I will not be physically present in Singapore. Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> [cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0] From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 3:57 PM To: 'Mary Wong'; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Mary, Based on what I am seeing on the list, this schedule will be entirely too ambitious and rushed. As previously mentioned, I am out of commission both Thursday and Friday (speaking at AIPLA mid-winter). We have previously agreed on ten minutes for the Chair's report and questions and 5 minutes for Avri's comments as liaison. In the mean time, we are soliciting further comments on the list as to each member's views on the topics. There will only be 2 or 3 slides and they will be based on the feedback received on the list. These do not need to be turned in by February 1 based on past practice. Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03B04.0FBA4D00] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hello all - one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that's shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest. This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council's further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings. If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that - if the final version is agreed on- the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting. We hope this suggestion is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03B04.0FBA4D00] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Anne, I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations. Best regards, Julie From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair's Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting. Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don't think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript? Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made. Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi Anne, no worries we merely wanted to make sure that you and the SCI are apprised of all the various options that are available. Perhaps this will be helpful for future reference as well. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 04:57 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Mary, Based on what I am seeing on the list, this schedule will be entirely too ambitious and rushed. As previously mentioned, I am out of commission both Thursday and Friday (speaking at AIPLA mid-winter). We have previously agreed on ten minutes for the Chair¹s report and questions and 5 minutes for Avri¹s comments as liaison. In the mean time, we are soliciting further comments on the list as to each member¹s views on the topics.
There will only be 2 or 3 slides and they will be based on the feedback received on the list. These do not need to be turned in by February 1 based on past practice. Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:39 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Julie Hedlund; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hello all one option that staff has noted was used in the past, and that may be helpful in making sure that the 15 minute update is most useful to both the SCI and the Council, is for Anne to provide a brief written update to the Council prior to the Singapore meeting. In this way, the slides used for the session can be minimal, even just one slide noting the existence of and high-level points of the update that¹s shown on screen. The 15 minutes can then be allocated between Avri providing her update to the Council in her role as liaison, for up to 5 minutes, with 10 minutes or more following that for the Council and the GNSO community to ask Anne, Lori, Avri and other SCI members present (physically or remotely) for further details or clarifications on points of interest.
This approach may allow for greater interaction and feedback, with a view toward the Council¹s further discussing any issues raised in one of its subsequent meetings.
If this approach finds favor with the SCI, a draft update can be circulated to this list by, say, Thursday 23.59 UTC, with any comments or objections to be received by Friday 23.59 UTC. Revisions can then be incorporated by Monday, so that if the final version is agreed on the written update can be sent on to the Council in good time for the Singapore meeting.
We hope this suggestion is helpful.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 02:07 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Thanks Julie. I will work with Lori on this as we hear further thoughts on the list. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:17 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Avri Doria'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Anne,
I can assist by preparing a couple of slides. I can look back at your message, but ideally the slides should just have very brief bullet points. If you and Lori have some brief points that you would like to send me separately in an email I can incorporate these into slides in the template we are using for Singapore presentations.
Best regards,
Julie
From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:01 AM To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi Avri, Lori and I will schedule the SCI Chair¹s Report for the first ten minutes of the time with Council. (Lori, I will come to you off list regarding this.) Thanks to staff for pointing out that the SCI Chair must report at each ICANN public meeting.
Many thanks Avri for your thorough and sincere explanation of your thinking on the best SCI working method. This deserves further discussion as to our working process in the next SCI call. I honestly don¹t think there were any inconsistent positions taken and again the mp3 may assist on that point. Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?
Regarding the remainder of your observations, I will come back later today with some further thoughts for discussion on the points you have made.
Have a great day in all respects and thank you for your active contributions to the list. Anne
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
On 28-Jan-15 11:01, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Have you had time to listen to it or to read the transcript?
Yes, i read it quickly a while back. I even just reread to try and figure out why you keep asking me this. The only thing I can find is an implicit request that instead of just reporting on the SCI to the council, the liaison should also report to the SCI on the council. No problem. Speaking as the liaison I am happy to have that as part of the regular SCI agenda. Understanding the task of the liaison role is evolving and this seems totally reasonable to me as a function of the role. Was that what you were looking for? Otherwise from reading the letter, and speaking now as a primary member who intends to remain one until such time as Stefania tells me she is ready to take on the primary role and we switch roles, I think that the process used to agree on the letter was rushed and did not take into account any discussion time. I am a bit surprised, now having reread the transcript with a searching intent, that the items 3 and 4 showed up on your revised version in the manner they did. I also saw no call for consensus on the letter, just a lack of dissent in the last seconds of the call. there was no call for consensus on the list either that I saw. As I said previously, I am concerned with SCI processes, and lack of strictness in its practices. As a member, the top down approach to letter writing does not seem the best example for this group to follow. Also I feel that in moving ahead with the letter, the concerns of those on the call may not have been fully factored in, but they would have to speak to that - though perhaps some have already given their indication in one form or another. I also noticed something I think I have noticed before and that is how few people spoke up during the meeting. Thanks avri
Hi, For what it’s worth, I did put this into the AC room chat during the SCI’s last call: “I would, as Greg suggested, postpone the review of the consensus levels after the GNSO review is done. I believe this is what we had planned at the time this came up.” This was, if I recall correctly, in response to what Greg had said: “With regard to the consensus level issue, this is one that unlike the other two I think actually may be best dealt with after the GNSO review and the Westlake Report and all that stuff comes out because I think that may conceivably relate to some of the output of that." So I am in favour of NOT working on a review of the consensus levels until after the GNSO review is done, and we have the Westlake recommendations. If I also recall correctly, one of the chief concerns with simultaneously dealing with the 10-day rule waiver and the resubmitted motions was that they would be best dealt with using amendments to the operating procedures in two different sections. This might have necessitated two separate SCI projects with two separate public comment periods. That was a valid enough reason to deal with one and then the other, and I factored that in when the decision was made to not include resubmitted motions with the waiver. I still do think we should work on getting this done. It doesn’t make much sense to me to not have the waiver apply to resubmitted motions. There are plenty of safeguards in both processes to ensure they are not abused. The SCI did some pretty good work on those when we came up with out recommendations. Again…, for the record, I’m also fine picking up the task of formalising procedures for friendly amendments as soon as we can, and as soon as the GNSO council deems it appropriate/practical. There is no mention of how friendly amendments are used in the GNSO operating procedures, but they are used quite frequently, and often become problematic. Thanks. Amr On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to Council.
Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to “never make a decision in one meeting”. We can certainly discuss this within SCI on our next call. Anne
<image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:44 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson
Hi,
I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time. I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being run. And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided.
SCI has always been a deliberative body. We discuss things more that once and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a meeting. Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in one meeting. This seems like a excellent practices. And while in the past that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may make such a practice necessary.
As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion.
As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter. Or perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report.
thanks
avri
On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote: Dear Anne,
I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan.
Thank you for your time on this.
Angie
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org> wrote: Dear Anne,
Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction.
Lori
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi, On 28-Jan-15 09:57, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Again…, for the record, I’m also fine picking up the task of formalising procedures for friendly amendments as soon as we can, and as soon as the GNSO council deems it appropriate/practical. There is no mention of how friendly amendments are used in the GNSO operating procedures, but they are used quite frequently, and often become problematic.
This one is thorny. Friendly amendments are not defined anywhere. In fact, Roberts Rules, specifically ricules the possiblity of such things being valid. The ordinary claim is that once a motion is made it no longer belongs to the person who made the motion but belongs to the group, in this case the council, itself. I tried to open this issue for discussion when I first became chair of the GNSO, but was quickly convinced that as new chair who had to tread carefully, this was not a subject the GNSO or its council was ready to deal with. It was a trusted practice, and I learned to leave it alone. Perhaps now, though, almost a decade later, the GNSO may be ready to deal with this issue. I think it is a very intersting issue for the SCI to work on. One change that has been made in the internal process, since my first time in the council, is that now not only the motioner has to approve the friendly, but the seconder is asked to as well. Not sure when this change was made or how it came into practice, but it seems to be the practice now. avri
Thanks Amr. As I understand it, you do favor the taking up of the 10 day waiver rule work in connection with the resubmission of motions sooner rather than later whereas Avri does not and you do favor taking up again with Council the topic of friendly amendments? Is that correct? Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D03AEC.1A834DD0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 7:57 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, For what it's worth, I did put this into the AC room chat during the SCI's last call: "I would, as Greg suggested, postpone the review of the consensus levels after the GNSO review is done. I believe this is what we had planned at the time this came up." This was, if I recall correctly, in response to what Greg had said: "With regard to the consensus level issue, this is one that unlike the other two I think actually may be best dealt with after the GNSO review and the Westlake Report and all that stuff comes out because I think that may conceivably relate to some of the output of that." So I am in favour of NOT working on a review of the consensus levels until after the GNSO review is done, and we have the Westlake recommendations. If I also recall correctly, one of the chief concerns with simultaneously dealing with the 10-day rule waiver and the resubmitted motions was that they would be best dealt with using amendments to the operating procedures in two different sections. This might have necessitated two separate SCI projects with two separate public comment periods. That was a valid enough reason to deal with one and then the other, and I factored that in when the decision was made to not include resubmitted motions with the waiver. I still do think we should work on getting this done. It doesn't make much sense to me to not have the waiver apply to resubmitted motions. There are plenty of safeguards in both processes to ensure they are not abused. The SCI did some pretty good work on those when we came up with out recommendations. Again..., for the record, I'm also fine picking up the task of formalising procedures for friendly amendments as soon as we can, and as soon as the GNSO council deems it appropriate/practical. There is no mention of how friendly amendments are used in the GNSO operating procedures, but they are used quite frequently, and often become problematic. Thanks. Amr On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Thanks Avri. I think SCI has 15 minutes in the agenda so how shall we split the time for our respective reports? (Lori and I can work out who will give the SCI Chair (or Vice Chair) report based on time zones etc.) I am copying Glen with respect to your recommendation that both the Chair (or Vice Chair) and the Council Liaison provide a report to Council. Let us know if you have further thoughts after review of the January 20 mp3 and/or transcript. I was not previously aware of a protocol to "never make a decision in one meeting". We can certainly discuss this within SCI on our next call. Anne <image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:44 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Letter to GNSO Council Chair Jonathan Robinson Hi, I have no idea what letter people are referring to at this time. I do not, however, feel at all comfortable with the way the process is being run. And the only letter I have approved is the one that Mary provided. SCI has always been a deliberative body. We discuss things more that once and allow time to ask questions, especially of those who cannot attend a meeting. Several groups have adopted a practice of never making a decsion in one meeting. This seems like a excellent practices. And while in the past that has never been a problem, we seem to be adopting a new pace that may make such a practice necessary. As for consensus, we tried to achieve that with discussion. As for the report, having thought about it a bit more, I think you should be able to make you own report remotely Anne, as required by the charter. Or perhaps Lori as vice chair can do it. I will give a brief liaison report. thanks avri On 27-Jan-15 16:22, Angie Graves wrote: Dear Anne, I agree with your revised letter to Jonathan. Thank you for your time on this. Angie On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org<mailto:lori.schulman@ascd.org>> wrote: Dear Anne, Thank you for the concise run down of events and positions. I agree with your proposal on how to proceed with the report and the request for direction. Lori ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi Anne, On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Thanks Amr. As I understand it, you do favor the taking up of the 10 day waiver rule work in connection with the resubmission of motions sooner rather than later
Yes…, that is correct. I do, however, believe we need to place this in the correct context when explaining our rationale to the council. I had offered the amendment to the council motion regarding the 10-day rule waiver, making sure that it was clear to the councillors voting on the motion that this did not affect the rules regarding resubmission of motions. To be sure of this, myself, I dug up the SCI email archives and transcripts that supported my belief; that this was indeed the intent of the SCI. I suggest we revisit any and all references in preparation for whatever proposal we submit to the council on this matter. It seems to me that we need to be very consistent in our own decision-making in order to provide the council with very solid and confident recommendations. Since joining the SCI, this committee has always been praised for its excessive use of due diligence to come up with confident recommendations that have always achieved unanimity in our consensus, and until very recently, also the unanimity of council votes on the recommendations we provided.
whereas Avri does not
Avri would need to clarify this herself. My personal understanding (and I may be mistaken) was that she was not very much in favour of this being revisited, but would abstain from disagreeing with the rest of the committee. If I’ve understood her correctly, her strong disagreement was with trying to tackle the issue of revision of the GNSO decision-making designations (consensus levels) until we have a clearer picture of what the full GNSO review would include. I share this same belief.
and you do favor taking up again with Council the topic of friendly amendments?
Yes…, very much so. Thanks. Amr
participants (7)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Amr Elsadr -
Angie Graves -
Avri Doria -
Julie Hedlund -
Lori Schulman -
Mary Wong