Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next Steps Constituency Operations Team--suggestions

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks SS,
I also found a paragraph in our Charter that when I read it it confuses me
in relation with constituencies and stakeholder groups:

*III. WORK TEAM RULES <AND PROCEDURES>*
..............

In all cases, the Chair will include the names and affiliations of those in
support of each position and for participants representing a group of
stakeholders (e.g., constituencies, stakeholder groups, other groups) will
indicate if their support represents the consensus view of their
constituency</group>.
r

Regards
Olga


2009/4/10 SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>

> Dear Olga,
> thanks for mail.
> For the timebeing, I will make following points on Agend and Draft work
> plan.
> Agenda--It appears to be highly loaded. I will prefer a thorough and
> indepth work than 'more amount of work'. For example, instead of vote on
> charter, it should be discussion. However, if majority of the members vouch
> that they have gone through the charter deligently and find no need for
> discussion and changes, it is ok to vote.
>
> Draft Work Plan--
> The Terms Constituency, Stake Holdre Group, Constituents need to be defined
> properly. It looks confusing at times.
> Ref to to Action Items/Deliverables item 1a, a list of Procedures
> 'presently' followed by various Stake Holder Groups.
> best regards,
> SS
>
> --- On *Wed, 4/8/09, Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
> From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next Steps Constituency Operations Team
> To: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx, "Julie Hedlund" <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rob
> Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, "Michael Young" <
> myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 2:15 PM
>
> Dear SS,
> thanks for your detailed and valuable comments.
> I will review them for our next conference call.
> Please review the draft working plan and the agenda proposed for the next
> conference call, and let us know if you think we should make changes to it
> in order to include new items.
> Best regards
> Olga
>
> 2009/4/8 SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>>    Dear Olga and The Team,
>>
> This refers to your mail of April 06 and item:
>
>
>
> 2.         Review background information regarding existing GNSO
> constituencies.
>
>
>
>  I have gone through the material circulated by Rob in his mail of March
> 27 and will refer particularly to two links from the mail, ie,
>
>
>
> 1. GNSO Improvements Information Page – Constituency Renewal Process
>  http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/renewal-process-en.htm
>
> 2. ICANN Public Comment Forum – GNSO Constituency Renewals 2009
> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-constituency-renewals
>
> --
>
> I will particularly draw Team’s attention to Rob’s Summary—Analysis of
> Public Comments …
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-constituency-renewals/msg00005.html
>
> and particularly last two sections:
>
> *III.             **SUMMARY & ANALYSIS *and* IV.  NEXT STEPS*
>
> * *
>
> Rob has very ably summarized and analyzed public comments.
>
> --
>
> *My Observations:*
>
> 1. There are only 5 comments by 4 persons, one person gives additional
> comments. One of the 4 supplements other person’s comments and adds his own.
>
> Public Comments are too few.
>
>
>
> 2.  For maximizing transparency, George Kirikos, in his public comments,
> lays down three criterion:
>
> 1) public mailing list archives
>
> 2) public postings of constituency budgets
>
> 3) public list of all members of a constituency.
>
> I suggest that Team debates on this and lays down clear cut criterion for 
> Transparency.
>
>  3. While summarizing the comments, Rob says,
>
> Most of the comments were quite *blunt* and generally expressed
> significant skepticism regarding the ultimate value and results of the
> re-confirmation process.
>
> I will say that the comments are *serious *and in some ways* damaging *to the 
> concerned parties*. *The Team should take these comments seriously while 
> analyzing the submissions from ‘particular’ Constituencies.
>
>
>  4. From the section *IV.  NEXT STEPS, *I understand that either some more 
> relevant document/reports are available or being prepared.
>
> These documents are important for the Team to carry out its work and should 
> be made available to it.
>
> 5. *Questionnaire*
>
> In the last meeting, a need for questionnaire was discussed. It is reported 
> in the minutes as:
>
>
>    - S.S.Kshatriya suggested that the team could develop questionnaires to
>    send to constituencies and use the information gathered to develop
>    guidelines.
>    - Rob said that the ICANN staff had sent out a questionnaire to
>    constituencies at the end of 2008 and promised to circulate the results to
>    the team.
>
> I have gone through
>
> Constituency Survey Report - 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-constituency-survey-report-28jan09-en.pdf
>
> Send by Rob. It is the questionnaire Staff had sent to members of the
> Constituencies. Members had free will to respond or not to. It is apparent
> that response was limited.
>
>
>
> What is needed is that The Team develops a set of questionnaires for the
> purpose of knowing if the Constituencies have followed ICANN/GNSO’s
> directives or not and how much. These are to be sent to Constituencies’
> Officers/Staff and it will be mandatory for them to respond.
>
>
>
> 6. *THE TEAM to have all INFORMATION for EFFECTIVE CONTRIBUTION*
>
> For any Committee or Board to take decision, relevant connected papers are
> necessary. I have a feeling that our Team lacks that facility. For example,
> the links sent by Rob should have been available in the beginning itself.
> The documents referred by me in 4 above are also important. Also, only those
> Documents are made available those are required in a particular meeting and
> the Team is not burdened (and gets confused) with irrelevant information.
>
>
>
> My suggestion will be that Chair and Vice Chair should sit down with the
> Staff and to workout proper strategy/procedure.
>
>
>
> 7. *Public Comments*
>
> I am aware that this suggestion is not relevant to this Forum (Team). Just
> in case Staff or any other Body wants to benefit from it:
>
>
>
> I have observed that Process of ‘Public Comments’ has several flaws. I will
> be prepared to give my suggestions/observations if needed.
>
>
>
> best,
>
>
>
> S S Kshatriya (SS)
>
> sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx
>
> --- On *Mon, 4/6/09, Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
> From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Next Steps Constituency Operations Team
> To: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, "Julie Hedlund" <
> jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rob Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>,
> "Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 12:47 PM
>
>
>  Dear Work Team Members,
>
> I hope this email finds you well.
>
> In preparation to our next conference call to be held next Friday, April
> 10th 13 GMT, we would appreciate if you can review the following information
> and documents.
>
>
> *1. Action Items:*
>
>
> **
> Here are the action items agreed to at the 27 March 2009 meeting.  These
> also are posted on the wiki main page at:
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team.
>
> I have also icluded who is responsible for each of the action items:
>
> 1.      Review the revised charter and provide comments or edits: Team
>
> 2.      Review background information regarding existing GNSO
> constituencies: Team
>
> 3.      ICANN staff to assist in reaching out to new constituencies to see
> if they want to send representatives to work with the team:Staff
>
> 4.      Vote on the revised charter including the priority of tasks and
> implementation plan at the meeting on April 10: Team
>
> 5.      Develop draft work plan for the subtasks of the “enhancing
> constituencies” task: Chair, Vice chair and Staff
>
> 6.   Chair and Vice-Chair provide biweekly reports to the OSC:chair and
> vice chair
>
>
> *2.  Meeting Notes:*
>
> *
> *
>
> The meeting notes for the 01 April 2009 meeting are posted on the wiki at:
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operations_team_meeting_notes
>  . Please let me know if you have any changes to suggest or questions.
>
>
> In addition, Julie has helped us making the following changes to the wiki.
> I welcome your suggestions for further improvements:
>
> *3.  Wiki Changes:
>
> *
> *Charter:
>
> *
> a.  Created a link to the draft charter new Wiki page at the top of the
> Work Team's main Wiki page.
> b.  Deleted the Charter text from the Work Team's main page and moved it
> to the new Charter Wiki page.
> c.  Moved the deleted text in Section VI to the bottom of the section so
> that the revised priority items are listed first.
>
> *Work Team Board Recommendation Draft Checklist (priority items):
>
> *
> a.  Created a link to the draft Board recommendation checklist new Wiki
> page at the top of the Work Team's main Wiki page.
> b. Created a link to the draft Board recommendation checklist new Wiki
> page at the top of the new Charter Wiki page (and in the reference to
> priorities)
>
>
> We are developing the work plan, that will be submitted hopefuly today for
> your comments and revision.
>
> Please let us know if you have any doubt or comment and please review the
> information included in this message.
>
> Best regards
>
> Olga Cavalli
>
>
>
>
>