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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If the wording is not clear, let's fix it.  That should be an easy task
that we could do in our meeting today.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:44 AM
        To: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Julie Hedlund; Rob Hoggarth; Michael
Young
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next Steps Constituency Operations
Team--suggestions
        
        
        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
<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
<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
<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-28
jan09-en.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-constituency-survey-report-2
8jan09-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_tea
m_meeting_notes
<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operations_te
am_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