[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue options

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi avri,

+1 for keeping the statu quo, I think that gnso spend (too much time) in
operational and procedural side.

Rafik
On Oct 6, 2012 10:41 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> guidance on this one welcome too.
>
> i tend toward the status quo.
>
> avri
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Subject: **[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For your review - raising an issue
> options*
> *Date: *24 September 2012 06:32:13 EDT
> *To: *"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>
> Dear All,
>
> In relation to the agenda item 'Raising an issue - Has this been
> sufficiently clarified', three possible approaches were identified during
> the last meeting:
>
>    1. *Maintain status quo* - which means only the GNSO Council or a
>    group chartered by the GNSO Council can request an item to be reviewed by
>    the SCI. Possibly consider communicating to other SO/ACs / individuals,
>    that if there are issues they would like to see reviewed by the SCI, that
>    they will need to channel these via the GNSO Council and/or a group
>    chartered by the GNSO Council.
>    2. *Add the possibility for other ICANN SO/ACs to make a direct
>    request to the SCI *? this would require a change to the SCI Charter
>    and would need GNSO Council approval.
>    3. *Add the possibility for any chartered group to make a direct
>    request to the SCI* ? this would require a change to the SCI Charter
>    and would need GNSO Council approval. Some also noted that a definition of
>    'chartered' would be needed as it is not clear whether SO/ACs are chartered.
>
> Members are encouraged to share their views on these three options and/or
> identify any other options that should be considered to address this issue
> ahead of the next meeting.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121009/bf2aaea8/attachment.html>