All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf-
Hi All, For the Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP, I see no content in the presentation.
From Marika, the current thresholds for terminating and initiating a PDP are as follows:
- Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. - Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. A staff recommendation has been made but has not yet gained consensus in the group. Best regards, Angie On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
All,
attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.
Best regards Wolf-
Thanks Angie, I'll include this Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: angie12345@gmail.com [mailto:angie12345@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Angie Graves Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 21:40 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Hi All, For the Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP, I see no content in the presentation.
From Marika, the current thresholds for terminating and initiating a PDP are as follows:
* Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. * Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. A staff recommendation has been made but has not yet gained consensus in the group. Best regards, Angie On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> wrote: All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf-
Thanks Angie. This information was certainly in an earlier draft. In fact, it was part of the change I suggested because I didn't see the language about "only for a significant cause". Wolf-Ulrich and Marika, was the document sent out for consensus somehow different from the one that we had all previously been working on? Anne [cid:718020723@20062012-1598]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:40 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Hi All, For the Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP, I see no content in the presentation. From Marika, the current thresholds for terminating and initiating a PDP are as follows: * Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. * Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. A staff recommendation has been made but has not yet gained consensus in the group. Best regards, Angie On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> wrote: All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf- ________________________________ 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.
What we have found consensus is as it used to be: Initiate PDP Within Scope Bylaws:<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9> Art X, §3(9)b<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9>
⅓ Both OR ⅔ One
3 AND 5 5 OR 9 Terminate a PDP (“only for a significant cause”) Bylaws:<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9> Art X, §3(9)g<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9>
= ⅔ Both OR = ¾ One AND > ½ One
5 AND 9 6 AND 7 4 AND 10 I will include in my presentation the modification suggested by staff and the status of discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrlaw.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 01:09 An: 'Angie Graves'; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Thanks Angie. This information was certainly in an earlier draft. In fact, it was part of the change I suggested because I didn't see the language about "only for a significant cause". Wolf-Ulrich and Marika, was the document sent out for consensus somehow different from the one that we had all previously been working on? Anne [cid:542211604@21062012-2ADB]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP * Suite 700 One South Church Avenue * Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Angie Graves Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:40 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Hi All, For the Voting Thresholds for Delaying a PDP, I see no content in the presentation. From Marika, the current thresholds for terminating and initiating a PDP are as follows: * Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. * Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. A staff recommendation has been made but has not yet gained consensus in the group. Best regards, Angie On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> wrote: All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf- ________________________________ 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.
The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception. The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time. The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN. Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view. For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf-
Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording. From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to public comment. The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council for public comment. Is the following version agreed? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception. The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time. The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN. Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view. For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf-
Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for this revision, but it doesn't resolve the matter as I had hoped. As I noted in my previous email: The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN. For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states: Further steps: . How to deal with the consensus items? - Back to council? - Council post it for Public Comment? . How to deal with items raised by individuals? I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community for public comment. The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the number of topics that need consideration and public comments - to add yet more to that pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do, IMHO. For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point. I see our guiding principal as, "What makes ICANN function more efficiently?" Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back - yet again - to the community for public comment is the opposite of that. My two cents. RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM To: randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording.
From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to public comment.
The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council for public comment. Is the following version agreed? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception. The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time. The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN. Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view. For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf-
Thanks Ron for making it clear. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 22. Juni 2012 14:46 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for this revision, but it doesn't resolve the matter as I had hoped. As I noted in my previous email: The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN. For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states: Further steps: * How to deal with the consensus items? - Back to council? - Council post it for Public Comment? * How to deal with items raised by individuals? I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community for public comment. The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the number of topics that need consideration and public comments - to add yet more to that pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do, IMHO. For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point. I see our guiding principal as, "What makes ICANN function more efficiently?" Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back - yet again - to the community for public comment is the opposite of that. My two cents... RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 ________________________________ From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM To: randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording. From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to public comment. The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council for public comment. Is the following version agreed? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception. The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time. The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN. Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view. For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf-
I agree with Ron and believe the GNSO should determine whether or not it wants public comment after it receives recommendations from the SCI. [cid:530451318@22062012-2FBB]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:46 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for this revision, but it doesn’t resolve the matter as I had hoped. As I noted in my previous email: The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN. For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states: Further steps: • How to deal with the consensus items? - Back to council? - Council post it for Public Comment? • How to deal with items raised by individuals? I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community for public comment. The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the number of topics that need consideration and public comments – to add yet more to that pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do, IMHO. For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point. I see our guiding principal as, “What makes ICANN function more efficiently?” Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back – yet again – to the community for public comment is the opposite of that. My two cents… RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 ________________________________ From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM To: randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording. From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to public comment. The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council for public comment. Is the following version agreed? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception. The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time. The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN. Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view. For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report All, attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting. Best regards Wolf- ________________________________ For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
Hi, I think I said somethng like this earlier. But in any case, +1 avri "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrlaw.com> wrote:
I agree with Ron and believe the GNSO should determine whether or not it wants public comment after it receives recommendations from the SCI.
[cid:530451318@22062012-2FBB]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700 One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 AAikman@LRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRLaw.com> • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message.
________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:46 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for this revision, but it doesn’t resolve the matter as I had hoped. As I noted in my previous email:
The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.
For clarity the slide I am asking to be deleted is #8 which states:
Further steps: • How to deal with the consensus items? - Back to council? - Council post it for Public Comment? • How to deal with items raised by individuals?
I do NOT believe that SCI determinations need to go back to the community for public comment. The ICANN community is already overwhelmed with the number of topics that need consideration and public comments – to add yet more to that pile is antithetical to what the SCI has been chartered to do, IMHO.
For my part, I would ask you to remove slide 8 altogether so as not to open a can of worms, which could be avoided at this point.
I see our guiding principal as, “What makes ICANN function more efficiently?” Sending items of detail that simply streamline action back – yet again – to the community for public comment is the opposite of that.
My two cents…
RA
Ronald N. Andruff President
RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
________________________________ From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:49 PM To: randruff@rnapartners.com; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report
Ron, I agree. The slide could be misunderstood due to my imprecise wording. From my point of view it's up to the council to forward these documents to public comment. The question is rather if the documents at all should be posted by the council for public comment.
Is the following version agreed?
Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________ Von: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 18:00 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Betreff: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report The slides capture a good summary of our work to date, in my view, Wolf-Ulrich - with one exception. The second to last slide creates an issue that could, and should be avoided at this time.
The question as to whether the SCI should put our work product out to public comment (or send back to GNSO) seems to over-complicate the purpose of a Standing Committee. The SCI role, as I understand it, is to knock off any rough edges of processes that, in practice, expose implementation issues. Therefore, it is neither NEW policy nor process; rather our work is simply an effort to ensure that all of the gears fit cleanly into the chain that drives ICANN.
Until the SCI has discussed this in more detail and taken a decision on the matter there is no reason to bring it up to anyone outside of the SCI, in my view. For this reason I urge you to remove this slide from the presentation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff President
RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
________________________________ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:48 PM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Council report All,
attached is the draft report to the council on Saturday morning. Please feel free to comment/amend. I'd like to send it to Glen by tomorrow 19:00 UTC for posting.
Best regards Wolf-
________________________________
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.
participants (5)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Angie Graves -
Avri Doria -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Ron Andruff