FW: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC
Hi Avri and Mary, Can the two of you please confirm that any documents necessary to move the SCI work forward will be submitted on Monday? (Please reply to all.) Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D06E09.1DCBC940] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 6:52 AM To: avri@acm.org; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; James M. Bladel; Gomes, Chuck; Michael Graham (ELCA) (migraham@expedia.com); Dillon, Chris (c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk); Rudi Vansnick; Heather Forrest (Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au); Jen Wolfe (jwolfe@wolfedomain.com); bret@nic.sexy; Jeff Neuman (jeff.neuman@comlaude.com); Elizabeth Williams; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu) (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu); Jonathan Zuck; Thomas Rickert; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Marika Konings; Mary Wong; Julie Hedlund; Steve Chan; Lars Hoffmann; gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC Dear Drafting Team/Working Group Chairs, Reminder! Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC. If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a Councillor. Please let me know if any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi Anne and everyone - thanks for following up! I can confirm that the two potential requests to the SCI from the Council will be on the agenda for the 16 April Council meeting. It will most likely be on the consent agenda, so no formal motion will be needed. The requests themselves were sent to the Council last month, as you know, and we have asked that Councilors send us any additional requests for further information as well. Thanks and cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Apr 3, 2015, at 15:25, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Hi Avri and Mary, Can the two of you please confirm that any documents necessary to move the SCI work forward will be submitted on Monday? (Please reply to all.) Thank you, Anne <image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Glen de Saint G?ry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 6:52 AM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; James M. Bladel; Gomes, Chuck; Michael Graham (ELCA) (migraham@expedia.com<mailto:migraham@expedia.com>); Dillon, Chris (c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>); Rudi Vansnick; Heather Forrest (Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>); Jen Wolfe (jwolfe@wolfedomain.com<mailto:jwolfe@wolfedomain.com>); bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy>; Jeff Neuman (jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>); Elizabeth Williams; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>) (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>); Jonathan Zuck; Thomas Rickert; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Marika Konings; Mary Wong; Julie Hedlund; Steve Chan; Lars Hoffmann; gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC Dear Drafting Team/Working Group Chairs, Reminder! Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC. If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a Councillor. Please let me know if any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.
Thanks Mary. We look forward to the report as to the discussion that occurred on March 19. It appears to me that one of the issues raised in our report in the January meeting was dropped but that a voting threshold issue previously put on hold may have been picked up. Can you or Avri please advise by reply to all? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D06E0C.2AB9B1A0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 12:37 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Avri Doria; <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC Hi Anne and everyone - thanks for following up! I can confirm that the two potential requests to the SCI from the Council will be on the agenda for the 16 April Council meeting. It will most likely be on the consent agenda, so no formal motion will be needed. The requests themselves were sent to the Council last month, as you know, and we have asked that Councilors send us any additional requests for further information as well. Thanks and cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Apr 3, 2015, at 15:25, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Hi Avri and Mary, Can the two of you please confirm that any documents necessary to move the SCI work forward will be submitted on Monday? (Please reply to all.) Thank you, Anne <image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 6:52 AM To: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; James M. Bladel; Gomes, Chuck; Michael Graham (ELCA) (migraham@expedia.com<mailto:migraham@expedia.com>); Dillon, Chris (c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk>); Rudi Vansnick; Heather Forrest (Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>); Jen Wolfe (jwolfe@wolfedomain.com<mailto:jwolfe@wolfedomain.com>); bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy>; Jeff Neuman (jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>); Elizabeth Williams; Petter Rindforth (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>) (petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>); Jonathan Zuck; Thomas Rickert; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Marika Konings; Mary Wong; Julie Hedlund; Steve Chan; Lars Hoffmann; gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC Dear Drafting Team/Working Group Chairs, Reminder! Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC. If you have reports for consideration, please send them directly to me at <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>> so that they can be forwarded to the Council. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a Councillor. Please let me know if any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Dear Anne, On 03-Apr-15 15:46, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Thanks Mary. We look forward to the report as to the discussion that occurred on March 19. It appears to me that one of the issues raised in our report in the January meeting was dropped but that a voting threshold issue previously put on hold may have been picked up. Can you or Avri please advise by reply to all?
The main part of the report can be had by reading the transcript from that meeting. It is found at: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-19mar15-en.pdf> I suggest that anytime you are curious about what happened in the council meeting, you check out the transcript. It get posted rather quickly. If you have an specific questions after reading the transcript, I will be happy to answer if I know the answer, or else will find it. If the group have any issue they want me to take the council, I am ready and waiting. And if I have a subject on which I feel it is necessary to communicate to the group as the liaison, I will do so. I have appended the appropriate section of the transcript below for your convenience. As Mary said, they are working on the motions. In other words nothing to report. avri page 53
So let’s deal with 11 first, an item that we had a couple of prospective pieces of work for the standing committee on improvements that were going to be in the pipeline. They are now adequately scoped with the help of Staff or at least there is a form of I think we’ll call it a template. And those templates are now populated. So the question is whether or not to refer these to the SCI. I just wonder whether there is any comment or question on these and where we take these. I looked at these two myself and I found them to be - both items which just feel to me that if they are (unintelligible) scoped, we could usefully do with some input on developing these. They weren’t created in a vacuum; we’ve run into real life issues. Avri, would you or Mary like to provide any other background or comment on these two items and whether or not we could usefully refer them to the SCI (unintelligible)? Mary, go ahead. Mary Wong: Hi Jonathan and everybody, it’s Mary again. And Avri is trying to unmute herself I believe so I will defer to her. Just to say of course that it’s not for Staff to suggest what would be the best course of action right now, but we can certainly provide some additional background if you like.
Avri Doria: Yes hi, this is Avri. I was on my phone and couldn’t find the mute button. My apologies; I’m not used to using the phone.
Page 54 Yes, at the moment - I mean unfortunately perhaps, these didn’t come in a form of a motion but they were just ready in time. And I want to thank, you know, Mary and Julie for preparing them. I really just sort of read, reviewed and made comments so they did most of the work. And what they did was they captured from the two conversations we’ve had relating to the two issues. You know, the issues that we could send to the SCI. So I think people need to read the description to make sure that they represent the issue correctly. And then I believe this is something that we would need, you know, a function (sic) on perhaps it could fall in
meant motion there
the consent mode if there’s, you know, certainly been discussion on it and the text has been tightened. But I don't know how much further in these last minutes you want to go on these. I think the discussions that we had in Singapore are fairly represented. Hopefully the people that participated in those discussions will make sure that they are. And then I think we need to, you know, I think this would be a majority type vote, but I think it would be a motion that we would send it. Thanks
(i hate reading what i say in transcripts - so many 'you knows' - must work on that.)
. Jonathan Robinson: Thanks Avri. I mean I too appreciate the work that’s gone into these, and so I think let’s see if we can’t review these further, let’s make sure we’re satisfied with them, and then as you say, bring them to the Council then formally. We’ll consider this a preliminary discussion. To my mind, at least one of these items is something which we could usefully have as process improvement. So I’m attracted to putting at least one through the process if not both, and it will be useful to get other input, as you say, refining the content if necessary and then bringing them forward for being dealt with by the SCI.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Dear Avri and Anne, As Mary noted in a previous message since the SCI requests are currently on the Consent Agenda for the Council meeting no motions are required. If that should change today while the agenda is under review by the Council Chairs I'll provide motions that Avri can submit by today's deadline. However, there have been no objections since Friday to Jonathan's suggestion to include the SCI requests in the Consent Agenda. Best regards, Julie From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Organization: Technicalities Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 4:15 PM To: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC
Dear Anne,
On 03-Apr-15 15:46, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Thanks Mary. We look forward to the report as to the discussion that occurred on March 19. It appears to me that one of the issues raised in our report in the January meeting was dropped but that a voting threshold issue previously put on hold may have been picked up. Can you or Avri please advise by reply to all?
The main part of the report can be had by reading the transcript from that meeting. It is found at: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-19mar15-en.pdf>
I suggest that anytime you are curious about what happened in the council meeting, you check out the transcript. It get posted rather quickly. If you have an specific questions after reading the transcript, I will be happy to answer if I know the answer, or else will find it. If the group have any issue they want me to take the council, I am ready and waiting. And if I have a subject on which I feel it is necessary to communicate to the group as the liaison, I will do so.
I have appended the appropriate section of the transcript below for your convenience.
As Mary said, they are working on the motions.
In other words nothing to report.
avri
page 53
So let¹s deal with 11 first, an item that we had a couple of prospective pieces of work for the standing committee on improvements that were going to be in the pipeline. They are now adequately scoped with the help of Staff or at least there is a form of I think we¹ll call it a template. And those templates are now populated. So the question is whether or not to refer these to the SCI. I just wonder whether there is any comment or question on these and where we take these. I looked at these two myself and I found them to be - both items which just feel to me that if they are (unintelligible) scoped, we could usefully do with some input on developing these. They weren¹t created in a vacuum; we¹ve run into real life issues. Avri, would you or Mary like to provide any other background or comment on these two items and whether or not we could usefully refer them to the SCI (unintelligible)? Mary, go ahead. Mary Wong: Hi Jonathan and everybody, it¹s Mary again. And Avri is trying to unmute herself I believe so I will defer to her. Just to say of course that it¹s not for Staff to suggest what would be the best course of action right now, but we can certainly provide some additional background if you like.
Avri Doria: Yes hi, this is Avri. I was on my phone and couldn¹t find the mute button. My apologies; I¹m not used to using the phone.
Page 54 Yes, at the moment - I mean unfortunately perhaps, these didn¹t come in a form of a motion but they were just ready in time. And I want to thank, you know, Mary and Julie for preparing them. I really just sort of read, reviewed and made comments so they did most of the work. And what they did was they captured from the two conversations we¹ve had relating to the two issues. You know, the issues that we could send to the SCI. So I think people need to read the description to make sure that they represent the issue correctly. And then I believe this is something that we would need, you know, a function (sic) on perhaps it could fall in
meant motion there
the consent mode if there¹s, you know, certainly been discussion on it and the text has been tightened. But I don't know how much further in these last minutes you want to go on these. I think the discussions that we had in Singapore are fairly represented. Hopefully the people that participated in those discussions will make sure that they are. And then I think we need to, you know, I think this would be a majority type vote, but I think it would be a motion that we would send it. Thanks
(i hate reading what i say in transcripts - so many 'you knows' - must work on that.)
. Jonathan Robinson: Thanks Avri. I mean I too appreciate the work that¹s gone into these, and so I think let¹s see if we can¹t review these further, let¹s make sure we¹re satisfied with them, and then as you say, bring them to the Council then formally. We¹ll consider this a preliminary discussion. To my mind, at least one of these items is something which we could usefully have as process improvement. So I¹m attracted to putting at least one through the process if not both, and it will be useful to get other input, as you say, refining the content if necessary and then bringing them forward for being dealt with by the SCI.
<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
Thanks Julie. Members cannot tell from the transcript which two items have gone in for approval on the Consent Agenda. Can you let us know by reply to all? Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D07099.5B5E7A90] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 7:26 AM To: Avri Doria; <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC Dear Avri and Anne, As Mary noted in a previous message since the SCI requests are currently on the Consent Agenda for the Council meeting no motions are required. If that should change today while the agenda is under review by the Council Chairs I'll provide motions that Avri can submit by today's deadline. However, there have been no objections since Friday to Jonathan's suggestion to include the SCI requests in the Consent Agenda. Best regards, Julie From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Organization: Technicalities Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 4:15 PM To: "<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: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC Dear Anne, On 03-Apr-15 15:46, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Thanks Mary. We look forward to the report as to the discussion that occurred on March 19. It appears to me that one of the issues raised in our report in the January meeting was dropped but that a voting threshold issue previously put on hold may have been picked up. Can you or Avri please advise by reply to all? The main part of the report can be had by reading the transcript from that meeting. It is found at: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-19mar15-en.pdf><http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-19mar15-en.pdf> I suggest that anytime you are curious about what happened in the council meeting, you check out the transcript. It get posted rather quickly. If you have an specific questions after reading the transcript, I will be happy to answer if I know the answer, or else will find it. If the group have any issue they want me to take the council, I am ready and waiting. And if I have a subject on which I feel it is necessary to communicate to the group as the liaison, I will do so. I have appended the appropriate section of the transcript below for your convenience. As Mary said, they are working on the motions. In other words nothing to report. avri page 53 So let’s deal with 11 first, an item that we had a couple of prospective pieces of work for the standing committee on improvements that were going to be in the pipeline. They are now adequately scoped with the help of Staff or at least there is a form of I think we’ll call it a template. And those templates are now populated. So the question is whether or not to refer these to the SCI. I just wonder whether there is any comment or question on these and where we take these. I looked at these two myself and I found them to be - both items which just feel to me that if they are (unintelligible) scoped, we could usefully do with some input on developing these. They weren’t created in a vacuum; we’ve run into real life issues. Avri, would you or Mary like to provide any other background or comment on these two items and whether or not we could usefully refer them to the SCI (unintelligible)? Mary, go ahead. Mary Wong: Hi Jonathan and everybody, it’s Mary again. And Avri is trying to unmute herself I believe so I will defer to her. Just to say of course that it’s not for Staff to suggest what would be the best course of action right now, but we can certainly provide some additional background if you like. Avri Doria: Yes hi, this is Avri. I was on my phone and couldn’t find the mute button. My apologies; I’m not used to using the phone. Page 54 Yes, at the moment - I mean unfortunately perhaps, these didn’t come in a form of a motion but they were just ready in time. And I want to thank, you know, Mary and Julie for preparing them. I really just sort of read, reviewed and made comments so they did most of the work. And what they did was they captured from the two conversations we’ve had relating to the two issues. You know, the issues that we could send to the SCI. So I think people need to read the description to make sure that they represent the issue correctly. And then I believe this is something that we would need, you know, a function (sic) on perhaps it could fall in meant motion there the consent mode if there’s, you know, certainly been discussion on it and the text has been tightened. But I don't know how much further in these last minutes you want to go on these. I think the discussions that we had in Singapore are fairly represented. Hopefully the people that participated in those discussions will make sure that they are. And then I think we need to, you know, I think this would be a majority type vote, but I think it would be a motion that we would send it. Thanks (i hate reading what i say in transcripts - so many 'you knows' - must work on that.) . Jonathan Robinson: Thanks Avri. I mean I too appreciate the work that’s gone into these, and so I think let’s see if we can’t review these further, let’s make sure we’re satisfied with them, and then as you say, bring them to the Council then formally. We’ll consider this a preliminary discussion. To my mind, at least one of these items is something which we could usefully have as process improvement. So I’m attracted to putting at least one through the process if not both, and it will be useful to get other input, as you say, refining the content if necessary and then bringing them forward for being dealt with by the SCI. ________________________________ [Image removed by sender. Avast logo]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hello Anne and everyone, The Council¹s 19 March meeting agenda for which Avri linked to the transcript (below) included an agenda item on the two potential request items for the SCI. These were scoped out by Avri and staff, as agreed at the SCI update session with the GNSO in Singapore in early February, and sent to the Council for its review on 10 March. A notification to that effect with links to the documented request templates was provided to the SCI immediately following. As far as we can tell, those were the only two items for potential Council action stemming from the Singapore discussions. The additional topic to which Anne had made reference in a separate email regarding Council voting thresholds has not been discussed within the SCI, as it was a potential topic first noted by the Council and remains ³on hold² by the Council. It was noted as such by the SCI at the Los Angeles meeting in October 2014. I hope this helps. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 02:41 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC
Thanks Julie. Members cannot tell from the transcript which two items have gone in for approval on the Consent Agenda. Can you let us know by reply to all? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 7:26 AM To: Avri Doria; <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC
Dear Avri and Anne,
As Mary noted in a previous message since the SCI requests are currently on the Consent Agenda for the Council meeting no motions are required. If that should change today while the agenda is under review by the Council Chairs I'll provide motions that Avri can submit by today's deadline. However, there have been no objections since Friday to Jonathan's suggestion to include the SCI requests in the Consent Agenda.
Best regards,
Julie
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Organization: Technicalities Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Friday, April 3, 2015 4:15 PM To: "<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: REMINDER: Document and motion Deadline MONDAY, 6 April 2015 at 23:59 UTC for GNSO Council meeting 16 April 2015 at 11:00 UTC
Dear Anne,
On 03-Apr-15 15:46, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Thanks Mary. We look forward to the report as to the discussion that occurred on March 19. It appears to me that one of the issues raised in our report in the January meeting was dropped but that a voting threshold issue previously put on hold may have been picked up. Can you or Avri please advise by reply to all?
The main part of the report can be had by reading the transcript from that meeting. It is found at: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-19mar15-en.pdf>
I suggest that anytime you are curious about what happened in the council meeting, you check out the transcript. It get posted rather quickly. If you have an specific questions after reading the transcript, I will be happy to answer if I know the answer, or else will find it. If the group have any issue they want me to take the council, I am ready and waiting. And if I have a subject on which I feel it is necessary to communicate to the group as the liaison, I will do so.
I have appended the appropriate section of the transcript below for your convenience.
As Mary said, they are working on the motions.
In other words nothing to report.
avri
page 53
So let¹s deal with 11 first, an item that we had a couple of prospective pieces of work for the standing committee on improvements that were going to be in the pipeline. They are now adequately scoped with the help of Staff or at least there is a form of I think we¹ll call it a template. And those templates are now populated. So the question is whether or not to refer these to the SCI. I just wonder whether there is any comment or question on these and where we take these. I looked at these two myself and I found them to be - both items which just feel to me that if they are (unintelligible) scoped, we could usefully do with some input on developing these. They weren¹t created in a vacuum; we¹ve run into real life issues. Avri, would you or Mary like to provide any other background or comment on these two items and whether or not we could usefully refer them to the SCI (unintelligible)? Mary, go ahead. Mary Wong: Hi Jonathan and everybody, it¹s Mary again. And Avri is trying to unmute herself I believe so I will defer to her. Just to say of course that it¹s not for Staff to suggest what would be the best course of action right now, but we can certainly provide some additional background if you like.
Avri Doria: Yes hi, this is Avri. I was on my phone and couldn¹t find the mute button. My apologies; I¹m not used to using the phone.
Page 54 Yes, at the moment - I mean unfortunately perhaps, these didn¹t come in a form of a motion but they were just ready in time. And I want to thank, you know, Mary and Julie for preparing them. I really just sort of read, reviewed and made comments so they did most of the work. And what they did was they captured from the two conversations we¹ve had relating to the two issues. You know, the issues that we could send to the SCI. So I think people need to read the description to make sure that they represent the issue correctly. And then I believe this is something that we would need, you know, a function (sic) on perhaps it could fall in
meant motion there
the consent mode if there¹s, you know, certainly been discussion on it and the text has been tightened. But I don't know how much further in these last minutes you want to go on these. I think the discussions that we had in Singapore are fairly represented. Hopefully the people that participated in those discussions will make sure that they are. And then I think we need to, you know, I think this would be a majority type vote, but I think it would be a motion that we would send it. Thanks
(i hate reading what i say in transcripts - so many 'you knows' - must work on that.)
. Jonathan Robinson: Thanks Avri. I mean I too appreciate the work that¹s gone into these, and so I think let¹s see if we can¹t review these further, let¹s make sure we¹re satisfied with them, and then as you say, bring them to the Council then formally. We¹ll consider this a preliminary discussion. To my mind, at least one of these items is something which we could usefully have as process improvement. So I¹m attracted to putting at least one through the process if not both, and it will be useful to get other input, as you say, refining the content if necessary and then bringing them forward for being dealt with by the SCI.
<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
participants (4)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Avri Doria -
Julie Hedlund -
Mary Wong