[NCUC-EC] SCI

Wed Aug 7 23:14:42 CEST 2013

Hi everyone,

There are a number of important issues before the SCI that I believe
directly impact our Constituency. One of these is an attempt by some SCI
members to switch the SCI from a full consensus voting model to one based
upon the WG rough consensus model. I agree with Avri and Amr that this
would not be in our interest and is something we should oppose.

Without going into too much detail, a letter is being sent from the SCI to
the Council concerning the revision of the SCI charter, a charter revision
that includes consideration of this issue. I don't believe the letter that
has been proposed accurately reflected the consensus of last nights
meeting. Ann Aikman-Scalese, the IPC rep, picked up on this and made a
suggested revision to the letter which I believe is in our interest. I
automatically posted a response on the SCI list supporting her revision and
then realised I perhaps should not have done so. My remit extended to
attending last night's meeting and nothing else. On the other hand, I do
believe we do need full representation on this standing committee. My
apologies if I overextended my authorised area of representation.

The next SCI meeting is scheduled for 10 September (it's in the process of
being moved from the original 3 September date in deference to the American
Labour Day holiday). I believe we need to have someone in place well before
then. There is a steep learning curve here.  I asked Avri what her ideal
colleague would be and she suggested someone who was both policy and detail
oriented. My preference would be a former Council member, if any could be
enticed. This really is insider stuff.

In any event, there is a lot coming up and,  as the  NPOC has no active
representation on the SCI,  I'd suggest we need to fill our slot ASAP so NC
interests are more  fully represented on the SCI. So...something else we
probably need to get done this month.

Ed

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>
Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to
Jonathan Robinson
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrlaw.com>
Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "
gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>

Thanks for the suggested revision Anne, which I believe reflects the
discussion at our meeting yesterday,  and which I fully support.

Regards,

Edward Morris
Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC)

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrlaw.com>wrote:

>   I believe the letter should be revised in the last paragraph as shown
> here:****
>
> ** **
>
> At yesterday's meeting, SCI members expressed an interest in further
> revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is
> clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and
> Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do
> so by the Council.  In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI
> members who believe the “full consensus” process is beneficial for a group
> of this type.  The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter
> and Consensus issues if so requested.    However, if the Council, as the
> Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the
> charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly.  In
> either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised
> Charter available as soon as possible.  The SCI stands ready to assist in
> this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate.****
>
> ** **
>
> Anne****
>
> ** **
>
> ******
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*****
>
> *Of Counsel*****
>
> *Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700*****
>
> *One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*****
>
> *Map to Parking Garage<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lewis+and+Roca+Tucson&gl=us&hl=en&sll=32.221762,-110.949424&sspn=0.006295,0.055067&ie=UTF8&view=map&cid=11847041291150279960&hq=lewis+and+roca+tucson&hnear=&ll=32.221951,-110.971892&spn=0.013524,0.019205&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A>
> *****
>
> *Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725*****
>
> *AAikman at LRLaw.com** • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
> *****
>
> ** **
>
> P ****
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org [mailto:
> owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:45 PM
> *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] FOR REVIEW: Draft Email to Jonathan
> Robinson
> *Importance:* High****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear SCI members,****
>
> ** **
>
> As mentioned on our call yesterday, staff has drafted for your review a
> message to go from Ron as SCI Chair to Jonathan Robinson, GNSO Council
> Chair, to seek further guidance on the next steps for the SCI Charter.****
>
> ** **
>
> Please respond by ***COB Wednesday, 14 August*** with any comments on the
> draft message.   No comments will be understood as agreement with the
> email’s contents.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Julie****
>
> ** **
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ****
>
> ** **
>
> ------------------ Begin Draft Message
> ---------------------------------------****
>
> Subject: GNSO Council Durban Wrap-Up Session and SCI Charter****
>
>  ****
>
> Dear Jonathan,****
>
>  ****
>
> I understand that the GNSO Council discussed the SCI Charter revisions at
> its Wrap-Up Session in Durban on Thursday 18 July.  At its meeting
> yesterday, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from that session and
> decided that it would be helpful to seek additional guidance from the
> Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI Charter.  In particular,
> based on the discussion in Durban, it seems clear that the GNSO Council
> would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing committee' and would like the
> Charter to reflect that role.****
>
>  ****
>
> Also at the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council discussed the SCI process for
> decision-making (full consensus versus Standard Methodology for Making
> Decisions).  The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this
> issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to
> share their views in support of one or the other option. Jeff Neuman also
> offered to provide background information as to why the SCI was initially
> required to operate under full consensus.****
>
>  ****
>
> At yesterday's meeting SCI members expressed an interest in further
> revising the Charter to ensure that the role of 'standing committee' is
> clear, to update it to include procedures for the election of SCI Chair and
> Vice-Chair, and to revise the decision-making process if directed to do
> so by the Council.  In this regard, it should be noted that there are SCI
> members who believe the “full consensus” process is beneficial for a group
> of this type.  The SCI would be happy to brief the Council on the Charter
> and Consensus issues if so requested.    However, if the Council, as the
> Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the
> charter, it would be helpful if it could inform the SCI accordingly.  In
> either case it seems clear that it will be helpful to have a revised
> Charter available as soon as possible.  The SCI stands ready to assist in
> this task in whatever way the Council deems appropriate.****
>
>  ****
>
> We await your guidance.****
>
>  ****
>
> Best regards,****
>
>  ****
>
> Ron****
>
>  ****
>
> Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI****
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20130807/3aebef4d/attachment.html>