Anne and Lori, Congratulations to both of you. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the rest of the SCI. Greg *Gregory S. Shatan **|* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:37 PM, <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

Congratulations to both Anne and Lori! I'm looking forward to work with you.

And to Ron many thanks for his thoughtful guidance over the last years. I'm sure to come crossing you in other challenging "capacities".

Wolf-Ulrich

Sent from my personal phone

Am 15.12.2014 um 20:12 schrieb Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>:

Dear SCI members,

The deadline for the call for nominations for the 2015 SCI Chair and Vice Chair ended COB Friday, 12 December. Here are the results of the call for nominations:

Chair: Amr Elsader nominated Anne Aikman-Scalese to be Chair of the SCI. Wolf Ulrich-Knoben seconded the nomination. Anne has accepted the nomination and is willing to serve as chair.

Vice Chair: Cintra Sooknanan indicated that she will not serve a second term as Vice Chair. Lori Schulman nominated herself to serve as Vice Chair. Cintra and Amr seconded the nomination. Since the SCI Charter requires that only a primary member of the SCI (not an alternate) may serve as Chair or Vice Chair, the NPOC has agreed that Lori will switch roles with Cintra and will serve as the primary member and Cintra will serve as the alternate.

As there were no other nominations for Chair or Vice Chair prior to the deadline, and as there is only one nomination for each position, there is no need to proceed to an election. Thus, the 2015 SCI Chair and Vice Chair will be Anne Aikman-Scalese and Lori Schulman.

Best regards, Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Many thanks to all who expressed their good wishes to me and to Lori. I look forward to continuing to work with all of you and thank you for your vote of confidence. Unless others have a different thought, I believe we should focus on a letter to GNSO Council outlining projects that were summarized by Ron in the LA meeting that may be useful to them and submitting the letter as a request for further direction regarding priorities for next year. I will get with Julie to schedule a call in January. Please reply to all with your comments regarding the bullet points/SCI priorities that should be mentioned in the letter to Council. My goal will be to draft a letter and present it for discussion by SCI in a January call. It would be good if we could present the letter to Council in sufficient time before Singapore to permit discussion by Council in that meeting. Finally, simply put, Ron is a hard act to follow so please help me with any advice you feel appropriate to maintain the fine working relationship that he and Wolf-Ulrich have established between Council and SCI over the past several years. Happy Holidays to those who are celebrating miracles at this time of year! Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D01910.EA926C20] 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 Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:20 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Julie Hedlund; <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RESULTS: 2015 SCI Chair and Vice Chair Selection Congrats to Anne and Lori! I also look forward to working with you. Best, Thomas Am 15.12.2014 um 21:30 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: Anne and Lori, Congratulations to both of you. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the rest of the SCI. Greg Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue • New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:37 PM, <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de<mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: Congratulations to both Anne and Lori! I'm looking forward to work with you. And to Ron many thanks for his thoughtful guidance over the last years. I'm sure to come crossing you in other challenging "capacities". Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone Am 15.12.2014 um 20:12 schrieb Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>: Dear SCI members, The deadline for the call for nominations for the 2015 SCI Chair and Vice Chair ended COB Friday, 12 December. Here are the results of the call for nominations: Chair: Amr Elsader nominated Anne Aikman-Scalese to be Chair of the SCI. Wolf Ulrich-Knoben seconded the nomination. Anne has accepted the nomination and is willing to serve as chair. Vice Chair: Cintra Sooknanan indicated that she will not serve a second term as Vice Chair. Lori Schulman nominated herself to serve as Vice Chair. Cintra and Amr seconded the nomination. Since the SCI Charter requires that only a primary member of the SCI (not an alternate) may serve as Chair or Vice Chair, the NPOC has agreed that Lori will switch roles with Cintra and will serve as the primary member and Cintra will serve as the alternate. As there were no other nominations for Chair or Vice Chair prior to the deadline, and as there is only one nomination for each position, there is no need to proceed to an election. Thus, the 2015 SCI Chair and Vice Chair will be Anne Aikman-Scalese and Lori Schulman. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ 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 Greg, A few comments in-line below: On Dec 16, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Anne,

Once again, congratulations. Here are two potential work items that I would like to suggest as priorities for 2015:

1. Clarifying that a "Resubmitted Motion" is Eligible for Waiver of the 10-day Deadline for Submission of a Motion. Due to some drafting inconsistencies between sections of the GNSO Council Operating Procedure, it was left unclear whether a "resubmitted motion" could be submitted less than 10 days before a meeting accompanied by a request for waiver of the 10-day deadline. Either resubmitted motions should be treated the same as other motions on this score (recognizing that there are other hurdles that resubmitted motions may have to face), or resubmitted motions are ineligible for waiver (which would lead to delay in consideration of the motion and/or calling o special session of the GNSO Council. This should be clarified, and the necessary amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures should be made.

I also support adding this to the agenda. It seems like unfinished business to me, and I see no reason why the waiver should not be applicable to resubmitted motions either.

2. Clarifying and Formalizing the Council's Procedure Regarding "Friendly Amendments." "Friendly amendments" are not mentioned in the GNSO Council Operating Procedure. As such, the Council's current use of friendly amendments is based at best on "oral tradition." Based on my research, there is no one generally accepted definition or treatment of "friendly amendments."

First, there appear to be two approaches to defining what a "friendly amendment" is:

a. The more common approach is that an amendment that changes the meaning of the original motion generally cannot be considered "Friendly," under any circumstances. Friendly amendments should only clarify or enhance the original motion. If a motion is not clearly friendly, the question of whether it qualifies as friendly should be opened to the floor. b. Alternately, any amendment will be considered "Friendly," if the member proposing it says it is, without any opportunity for discussion or objection

Point “b” is fairly accurate except that there is normally some discussion of the friendly amendment being suggested that takes place. The earlier the amendment is made, the more time there is for discussion. I have personally found it problematic when an amendment is suggested only hours before the vote is scheduled to take place.

Second, once the amendment there appear to be three basic approaches to handling motions defined as "Friendly":

x. No Friendly Amendments. This is the position in Robert's Rules of Order, applied strictly. Any amendment to a motion must be discussed and voted on separately from the (unamended) motion. As one commentator explained "Once a motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, it belongs to the group as a whole, not to the individual who first proposed it. It is the group as a whole that must accept or reject any proposed amendment, whatever the intent of the proposer. The maker of the motion, and the seconder, have the same rights as the other members of the group – no more and no less." y. If the Movant and Second (of the original motion) approve and there is no objection from the floor, the motion is amended automatically. (Variation: there must be full consensus on the amendment for the motion to be amended automatically.) If there is any objection (or lack of consensus) by any member, the amendment must be discussed and voted on separately from the motion. z. To be Friendly, the Movant and Second of the original motion must approve; if they approve, the motion is amended automatically. The unamended motion disappears and is replaced by the amended motion, without any discussion of or opportunity to vote on the original motion, and without any discussion about whether the amendment is appropriate.

Based on recent practice, it appears that the GNSO Council falls into the last category in each list (i.e., (b) and (z)), but there is no evidence that this was a conscious decision. I believe that a somewhat more restrictive approach is appropriate -- basically (a) and (y) above. The SCI should consider this and then clarify and formalize GNSO treatment to avoid confusion and potential gaming.

I think this is an accurate description, and I second that options “a” and “y” should be explored as formalised procedures to friendly amendments. Another detail we would need to hash out to achieve this is actually also formalising the role of a seconder to a motion in the operating procedures. Although this is customary in the GNSO Council, there is no mention of a requirement for a seconding of any motion currently documented (unless I’ve missed it somewhere). Thanks. Amr