Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI Hi Wolf, Please see the transcript below. With best regards, Marika Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: SCI Hi Marika, Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Dear All: My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: marika.konings@icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika, Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Thank you for this, J. Scott. I support your way forward. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:05 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; marika.konings@icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI Dear All: My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com _____ From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: marika.konings@icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI Hi Wolf, Please see the transcript below. With best regards, Marika Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: SCI Hi Marika, Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott
j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: marika.konings@icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika,
Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting?
Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott
j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: marika.konings@icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika,
Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting?
Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 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>> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott
j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika,
Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting?
Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>; "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: marika.konings@icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika, Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
I think it would be quite difficult for any Chair to assert neutrality in deciding to overrule a requested deferral that has become customary in gnso practice. It seems to me that in the situation recently encountered, a charge of lack of neutrality would definitely have been levelled against the current chair. Anne Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: J. Scott Evans [jscottevans@yahoo.com] Received: Thursday, 13 Sep 2012, 3:27am To: Marika Konings [marika.konings@icann.org]; KnobenW@telekom.de [KnobenW@telekom.de]; avri@acm.org [avri@acm.org]; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>; "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 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>> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott
j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika,
Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting?
Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
________________________________ 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.
Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically underlined sentence): '3.7 Appeal Process Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this document, the same appeals process may be invoked'. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>> Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, 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>> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> To: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>; "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <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>> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 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>> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott
j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika,
Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting?
Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Is this provision applicable to the GNSO Chair? j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>; "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:03 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically underlined sentence):
'3.7 Appeal Process Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative.
In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this document, the same appeals process may be invoked'. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>; "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: marika.konings@icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika, Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Apologies, yes, you are right, this is from the GNSO WG Guidelines and applies to GNSO WG Chairs. I checked the GNSO Operating Procedures but could not find anything similar that applies to the GNSO Council Chair. Best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>> Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 13:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, 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>> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Is this provision applicable to the GNSO Chair? j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>>; "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>; "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <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>> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:03 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically underlined sentence): '3.7 Appeal Process Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this document, the same appeals process may be invoked'. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>> Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, 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>> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> To: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>; "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <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>> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 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>> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott
j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com<mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com>
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika,
Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting?
Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
I certainly recall in the GCOT WG the discussion of Chair and Vice Chair accountability particularly to neutrality. But I have to agree, I do not see such language referenced in the Operating Procedures. I do see this under 4.5.1: Specific Councilor obligations include periodically reviewing the performance of the Chair and Vice-Chairs. Which is not of much assistance if there is nothing even generally that speaks to what the performance of the Chair and Vice-Chair is expected to be. Avri and Ron, how did you let this happen? J Ray From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:48 AM To: J. Scott Evans; KnobenW@telekom.de; avri@acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Apologies, yes, you are right, this is from the GNSO WG Guidelines and applies to GNSO WG Chairs. I checked the GNSO Operating Procedures but could not find anything similar that applies to the GNSO Council Chair. Best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 13:39 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Is this provision applicable to the GNSO Chair? j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com _____ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>; "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:03 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines states (see specifically underlined sentence): '3.7 Appeal Process Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. In addition, if any member of the WG is of the opinion that someone is not performing their role according to the criteria outlined in Section 2.2 of this document, the same appeals process may be invoked'. With best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday 13 September 2012 12:26 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI We may also want to cite the provisions that deal with how to deal with a complaint about the Chair's performance. Are there any such provisions? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com _____ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> To: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>; "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:21 AM Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI You may want to reference section 6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expectations of the Chair of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which includes amongst others 'The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement'. With best regards, Marika From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 23:05 To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. To be excluded from this courtesy are cases on PDP votes, where the deferral is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote: > Dear All: > > My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text: > > The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . > > We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call. > > J. Scott > > j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com > > > From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> > To: marika.konings@icann.org > Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org > Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM > Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI > > Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team. > > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > > Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 > An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich > Betreff: Re: SCI > > Hi Wolf, > > Please see the transcript below. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just > Julie Hedlund:joined > Marika Konings:Hi Julie > Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. > avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. > J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue > Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling > Ron A:BC supports status quo > Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle > Ron A:My point Avri! > J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. > Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? > Ron A:bias by way of affiliation > J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. > J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU > avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. > J. Scott Evans:SCI > avri:PDP's not PDPD's > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. > J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott > J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted > Ron A:@ J +1 > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. > Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri > Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". > Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe > Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? > avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. > avri:coffying - codifying. > Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI > Ron A:SCI recommendations > avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. > Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle > avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri > Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation > avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. > Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott > Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds > Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? > J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. > J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. > Ron A:Good bye all > J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say > Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf > Wolf Knoben:Thanks all > > From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> > Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 > To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> > Subject: SCI > > Hi Marika, > > Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? > > Thanks and > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > > >
Avri: Would the addition of the highlighted language below address your concerns? J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: avri@acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:05 PM Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Could then the following amendment cover your point, Avri? The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date in those situations where a formal process for a deferral is not specifically provided.[insert footnote referring to PDP Manual here]. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situation that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . . In addition, could someone from staff please assist in referencing the provisos for a neutral chair position? Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 17:44 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] SCI Hi, In general I am ok, but we need to differentiate for where the deferral, on PDP votes, is governed by procedures defined in the PDP manual, where it is procedurally defined and no longer a chair courtesy. http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-pdp-manual-04nov11-en.pdf For example on initiation and council deliberation. avri On 7 Sep 2012, at 19:05, J. Scott Evans wrote:
Dear All:
My proposal was for us to simply state our decision and the explain our rationale for the decision to the GNSO. Here is some proposed text:
The SCI was asked to consider the current GNSO Council informal practice whereby a party may request the deferral of a motion to a later date. The SCI discussed this practice and whether there was a need to create a procedure to formalize this informal practice. After much debate, the SCI concluded that the current practice of allowing for the deferral of motions was done as a matter of courtesy at the discretion of the Chair of the GNSO Council. For this reason, the SCI concluded that there was no need to create a formal procedure at this time. However, the SCI felt that it was necessary to explicitly state that there is no rule that the Chair must always exercise his or her discretion in the affirmative. Given that the current informal practice is at the discretion of the Chair, the Chair can exercise that same discretion in considering whether to grant or deny any request and can also exercise his or her discretion when determining how to handle any specific situat! ion that may occur with regard to this informal practice. . . .
We should probably add some language about the neutral position of the GNSO Chair and reference the provision that currently exist for dealing with a perception that the Chair is not acting in a neutral manner. I just didn't have all those references handy, but I want to get this out to the list in time for everyone to consider before the next call.
J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> To: marika.konings@icann.org Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:35 AM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] AW: SCI
Thanks Marika, I just share it with the team.
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 14:34 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: Re: SCI
Hi Wolf,
Please see the transcript below.
With best regards,
Marika
Julie Hedlund:Hi Marika I just Julie Hedlund:joined Marika Konings:Hi Julie Marika Konings:Analysis is up now. avri:The opinion that says Avri can be marked as NCSG. J. Scott Evans:I think there has already been an issue, the problem was there was no formal process for considering the issue Ron A:@ Avri: ltd to one to ensure no stonewalling Ron A:BC supports status quo Ron A:Agree with argument; but safeguard the principle Ron A:My point Avri! J. Scott Evans:If we leave it as is, then I think we need be very specific in our reasoning by pointing out that we believe that the Chair has the discretion to deny. That needs to be clearly ennunciated. Ron A:What happens if the chair is biased for or against? Ron A:bias by way of affiliation J. Scott Evans:Good question Anne. J. Scott Evans:I thought Stephane clearly stated that he could NOT deny request because he had no process for doing so. Hence, theis issue coming to the SCIU avri:Except in PDPD's where it has been enshrined, it is just a priactice and practice belongs to the chair. J. Scott Evans:SCI avri:PDP's not PDPD's Anne Aikman-Scalese:Chair cannot choose without authority to do so in governance documents, I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Principle should not depend on which particular individual holds the position of Chair of the GNSO. Authority to override a deferral should be clear if it is needed. J. Scott Evans:If you want to keep it as is, I think that we need to clearly state that the Chair has discretion to deny or to put to a vote. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with J Scott J. Scott Evans:In other words, clearly state that the request does not HAVE to be automatically granted Ron A:@ J +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree with J. Scott and Ray but we should cite to the basis for this opinion by SCI. Ron A:8 days for larger institutions that make up the BC or ISCP need more than 8 days Avri Ray Fassett - RySG:Anne-perhaps can cite the rationale as the checks balances that exist in procedures for the chair to always act neutral Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but overriding a deferral may not be seen as "neutral". Ray Fassett - RySG:in that situation, there are procedures for others to bring that complaint, I believe Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes, but do we really want to put the GNSO Chair in that position in relation to complaints? avri:i disagree with coffying what the chair can and can't do. avri:coffying - codifying. Ron A:@ Anne: we are only giving recommendations back to council at teh SCI Ron A:SCI recommendations avri:each chair gets to interpret on her own. Ron A:Let the Chair's authority be challenged by test of the principle avri:and if she is deemd to have done wrong by the g-council, she can be removed or not re-elected. Otherwise we will need 10 volumes of g-council rules. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with ron and avri Ron A:@ J - fully agree with your summation avri:The working on this goes too far for me. I do not think we should be offereing specific alternatives. Ray Fassett - RySG:agree with j scott Ron A:The reasoning doesn't havet to go to far into the weeds Anne Aikman-Scalese:J. Scott, Are you saying the deferral practice itself is discretionary with the Chair so the denial of a deferral is also discretionary? J. Scott Evans:Anne: Yes, picking up on Avri's point, the deferral practice is courtesy that has historically been extended at the discretion of the Chair. J. Scott Evans:And that there shoujld be no assumption that that disrection must be exercised in all cases. Ron A:Good bye all J. Scott Evans:or extended I should say Ray Fassett - RySG:thanks Wolf Wolf Knoben:Thanks all
From: "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de> Date: Thursday 6 September 2012 05:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: SCI
Hi Marika, Could you please provide us with the chat of the last SCI meeting? Thanks and Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
participants (7)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Avri Doria -
J. Scott Evans -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Marika Konings -
Ray Fassett -
Ron Andruff