All...,
"Oops and Apologies" - I certainly misread the response from
Stefania...sorry! (my bad)
I was politely declining in lieu of the more experienced person where it
appeared that it was already telegraphed to the Council.
*Please *re-accept* my application as a volunteer as an alternate on the
SCI.
And yes I agree with you Tapani it is indeed better to have "more than
less" - the Council will then make an informed decision.
regards
Karel
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
> Karel,
>
> Please reconsider. Note that there are two positions to be
> filled in SCI, primary and alternate, and if Stefania moves
> from alternate to primary, it still leaves alternate free
> for new volunteers such as yourself.
>
> Also, while I indicated I'd be willing to take the alternate
> myself, it's not like I need more work, so I'd be only happy
> to spread the load and have someone active like you there.
> I'll be keeping close contact with our SCI representatives
> anyway, I don't need to be there myself.
>
> In general it's also better to have too many volunteers
> than too few. I would encourage all who think themselves
> able and willing to throw their hat in the ring and give
> the Policy Committee the rare luxury of having several
> good candidates to choose from.
>
> Tapani
>
>
> On Nov 02 16:36, Karel Douglas ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> > All ,
> >
> > In light of Stefania's email where she indicated that she had
> > already telegraphed her interest to the Committee , and in the spirit of
> > consensus in the community I would respectfully withdraw my "candidacy"
> as
> > a volunteer.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Karel DOUGLAS
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:07 PM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think Stefania as a new councillor would get a double dose of value
> for
> > > us in this position.
> > >
> > > -James
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 02/11/2015, 5:03 p.m., "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of "Kleinwächter,
> > > Wolfgang"" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
> > > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >1+ for Stefania
> > > >
> > > >wolfgang
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > >Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Milan, Stefania
> > > >Gesendet: Mo 02.11.2015 13:41
> > > >An: [log in to unmask]
> > > >Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Call for volunteers: New SCI
> representative &
> > > alternate
> > > >
> > > >Dear all
> > > >
> > > >I have already made my availability known to the NCSG Policy Committee
> > > but forgot to do so on this list.
> > > >
> > > >I believe serving on SCI would be particularly helpful in view of my
> > > recent election to the GNSO Council.
> > > >
> > > >Best, Stefania
> > > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > >Da: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> per conto di Karel
> > > Douglas <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >Inviato: lunedì 2 novembre 2015 13.36
> > > >A: [log in to unmask]
> > > >Oggetto: Re: Call for volunteers: New SCI representative & alternate
> > > >
> > > >Dear All,
> > > >
> > > >I have read up on some of the documents and browsed the SCI site with
> the
> > > current work up for consideration, previous work done in 2014, 2013 ,
> etc
> > > and would be happy to volunteer as an alternate.
> > > >
> > > >I hoping that my legal training and experience in corporate governance
> > > would benefit the SCI.
> > > >
> > > >kind regards
> > > >
> > > >Karel DOUGLAS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Karel Douglas <
> [log in to unmask]
> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> > > >WOW...that was fast! :-)
> > > >
> > > >Thanks AMR for your very comprehensive and detailed reply. Yes - your
> > > answer has helped!
> > > >
> > > >I will certainly do some reading up on the SCI charter and take a
> look at
> > > the public record of the work done to date by the SCI.
> > > >
> > > >Many thanks buddy!
> > > >
> > > >kind regards
> > > >
> > > >Karel
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:
> > > [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> > > >Hi Karel,
> > > >
> > > >> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:35 PM, Karel Douglas <[log in to unmask]
> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks Avri et al
> > > >>
> > > >> Avri - blunt and to the point is always appreciated.
> > > >>
> > > >> As a newbie I have a couple brief questions which are flying around
> my
> > > head :
> > > >>
> > > >> (1) how often does the SCI meet to discuss changes to the documents?
> > > >
> > > >Usually once every two weeks for one hour as long as there are ongoing
> > > projects the SCI is working on. When there are projects, most of the
> work
> > > (as is the case with all groups) takes place offline and over email.
> In the
> > > past, temporary sub-teams have also been set up to work intensively on
> > > something, before review by the full committee.
> > > >
> > > >> (2) how do suggested amendments / improvements get to the SCI...are
> > > improvements generated by regular internal review in the SCI or are
> > > suggested changes transmitted by GNSO / NCUC / NPOC to the SCI for
> review
> > > ,report and recommendation?
> > > >
> > > >The SCI has the discretion to suggest initiation of work on a certain
> > > topic, but this needs to be communicated to the GNSO Council.
> Normally, it
> > > is the Council that passes on questions/puzzles to the SCI, and ask the
> > > committee to have some fun with it.
> > > >
> > > >In the recent past, there was an attempt by a GNSO constituency to
> > > directly request the SCI to take up a project, but this was deemed as
> > > outside the normal process. If (for example) NCUC or NPOC want the SCI
> to
> > > review something, they would need to advise their representatives on
> the
> > > GNSO Council, and ask them to take it up with the full council first.
> > > >
> > > >> (3) How are suggested changes eventually made? Is it unilaterally or
> > > does it come back for approval of the GNSO EC and /or membership.
> > > >
> > > >The SCI needs to achieve full consensus on any recommended changes it
> > > makes to the GNSO operating procedures. Before forwarding its
> > > recommendations to the council, a public comment period needs to be
> held,
> > > then finally a motion and a vote on the GNSO council for the GNSO to
> adopt
> > > the recommended changes. If ICANN bylaws need to be amended for any
> > > reasons, the ICANN board will need to hold a public comment period of
> its
> > > own, and have its own resolution to adopt changes.
> > > >
> > > >> Even if I don't put my hat in the ring I would love to hear more
> about
> > > the SCI. I guess there is an SCI operating procedures manual lying
> around
> > > somewhere which speak to these matters. Maybe you could provide a link
> to
> > > it.Many thanks
> > > >
> > > >Here is a link to the SCI's charter:
> > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/2.+Charter. There is also
> a
> > > public record of all the work done by the SCI on its wiki page, so take
> > > time to browse through it, if you're interested.
> > > >
> > > >I hope this helps.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >Amr
>
|
