Re: [council] SCI update and motion

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Bill for responding.

Wolf, if you do not see any opposition to this by COB tomorrow, Friday July 6, 
please proceed with option 1.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT

Le 5 juil. 2012 à 07:25, William Drake a écrit :

> Not me
> 
> BD
> 
> On Jul 4, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Wolf. Please thank the SCI for this work.
>> 
>> I would suggest we adopt the first procedure, with the SCI putting out for 
>> public comment and only coming to the Council once this has been done and it 
>> has incorporated any comments received in the way it sees fit.
>> 
>> Does anyone oppose this?
>> 
>> Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Directeur Général / General manager
>> INDOM Group NBT France
>> ----------------
>> Registry Relations and Strategy Director
>> Group NBT
>> 
>> Le 4 juil. 2012 à 15:46, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>  
>>> As discussed during the SCI update to the GNSO Council in Prague, the SCI 
>>> has now approved the proposed procedure for a consent agenda as well as an 
>>> updated version of the voting matrix which incorporates the new voting 
>>> thresholds resulting from the recently approved revised GNSO PDP. Both 
>>> these documents are intended to modify the GNSO Operating Procedures. The 
>>> SCI hereby submits these documents for your consideration, approval and 
>>> sending out for public comment period of 21 days. A respective motion is 
>>> attached if needed.
>>>  
>>> As also discussed during the Prague meeting, the SCI would like to obtain 
>>> clarification from the GNSO Council on how to handle public input on these 
>>> proposed changes in future. ICANN Staff has indicated that according to the 
>>> ICANN Bylaws at a minimum a public comment period of 21 days should be 
>>> conducted on any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures. From the SCI's 
>>> perspective, there are two possible options the GNSO Council may want to 
>>> consider:
>>> The SCI puts out the proposed changes out for public comment, following 
>>> which the SCI reviews the public comments received and updates the proposed 
>>> changes, if deemed appropriate. The updated proposed changes, in addition 
>>> to the report of public comments received are then submitted to the GNSO 
>>> Council for consideration.
>>> The SCI submits the proposed changes to the GNSO Council, following which 
>>> the GNSO Council opens a public comment forum on the proposed changes. Once 
>>> the public comment forum closes, the GNSO Council decides how to address 
>>> any comments received, which may include referring the comments back to the 
>>> SCI for consideration and possible updates to the proposed changes.
>>>  
>>> From the SCI's perspective, its members are happy to follow either 
>>> procedure (or alternative the GNSO Council may want to propose), so that it 
>>> is clear what the required steps are for any future proposed changes to the 
>>> GNSO Operating Procedures the SCI may propose.
>>> With best regards,
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
>>>  
>>>  
>>> <GNSO Council Voting_Consensus.doc><Consent Agenda - Consensus.doc><Motion 
>>> on the opening of a public comment forum - 4 July 2012.doc>
>> 
>