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 >