Dear All, The next Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting will take place on 13 September 2012 at 19:00 UTC. Please find the Mp3 recording from the SCI call on Thursday, 30 August 2012 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20120830-en.mp3 on page Transcript and Mp3 recorded will be posted shortly on: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug Attendees Avri Doria - Non Commercial SG - Primary Ray Fassett - Registry Stakeholder Group - Primary J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Constituency - Primary Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC Alternate Ron Andruff - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP - Primary Apology: Mary Wong - Non-Commercial Users Constituency - Primary Jonathan Robinson - Registry Stakeholder Group - Alternate James Bladel - Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) - Alternate Angie Graves - Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Alternate Staff: Julie Hedlund Marika Konings Berry Cobb Glen de Saint Géry Please let me know if your name has been left off the list. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen GNSO Secretariat gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> AC Chat transcript 30 August 2012 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org