[gnso-osc-csg] Work Plan Task 1, Subtask 1--my clarification

[SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Everybody,
This in reference to responses on my suggestion to Julie through an individual 
mail, as I had some confusion about terminology. This has created more 
confusion. I want to clarify my stand.
 

I have no conflict with Victoria’s suggestions/fears about the term ‘template.’ 
As for as I understand, WT makes recommendations. It may be a template, a 
document or a PowerPoint. It does not matter to me. It can be called 
guidelines, guiding principles or by any other name, it does not matter to me. 
For me, process is very simple. WT makes recommendations. For somebody (say 
Constituencies), these are guidelines. Once they apply it, it becomes rules. 
After recommendations, all is beyond WT’s control or interest.
Agree with Olga and Michael that suggestions 1 and 2 are different things.
 
When I look at Julie’s last mail about BGC’s report, the issue seems to be 
settled. It talks of existing constituencies and its membership 
(“…..  At present, each constituency has a different set of membership and 
operating processes,……”). 
It does not talk about new constituencies in a Stakeholder’s group.
 
I suggest that Olga, Michael and Chuck guide Julie for correct wording of 
subtask 1.1.
 
SS
--

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC-CSG Work Team Work Plan Task 1, Subtask 1
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "OSC-CSG Work Team" 
<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 12:40 PM



Chuck,
 
Michael suggested that to assist with this discussion it might be helpful to 
see the language from the BGC Report that formed the basis for the Board's 
recommendations.  Here is some relevant language from the report.  I have 
underlined the language that related most closely to the checklist and the 
workplan details.
 
Thank you,
 
Julie
 
Relevant References in the Board Governance Committee (BGC) GNSO Review Working 
Group Report on GNSO Improvements
6. Recommendations re: Constituency Structure, 6.2 Steps to Improve 
Effectiveness, p. 42, para. 4 and 6, and p. 43 (full page): 
 
“For many who might be interested in ICANN’s policy discussions, another 
barrier is the myriad of different ICANN processes which can be hard to 
understand and follow.  At present, each constituency has a different set of 
membership and operating processes, and it is difficult for an individual to 
have a quantifiable impact on the policy process other than through a 
constituency.  These problems are magnified for those who are not comfortable 
working in English.  One solution is for each constituency to have a clearly 
communicated set of participation rules and operating principles that are based 
on common principles developed by the GNSO.  These rules then should be made 
available in a variety of languages so that they can be understood by ICANN’s 
global audience.”
[…] 
“There are a number of specific areas that must be addressed.  The first is the 
need for constituency-developed participation rules for all constituencies that 
encourage openness, transparency and accountability.  The rules must adhere to 
the following principles:
 

The criteria for participation in any ICANN constituency should be objective, 
standardized and clearly stated.
Admissions decisions should be transparent, including how these decisions are 
communicated, and how many applicants are successful.
General information about each participant application and decisions regarding 
admissions should be publicly available.  Each constituency must keep records 
of successful and unsuccessful applicants.
Each constituency should maintain up-to-date records of all current members, 
and this information must be publicly available.
There must be a clear avenue of appeal for an applicant rejection to a neutral 
third party.
“In addition, the GNSO constituencies, with Council and Staff participation, 
should develop clear operating principles for each constituency to ensure that 
all constituencies function in a representative, open, transparent and 
democratic manner.  These should reflect common principles and follow these 
guidelines:
 


Mailing and discussion lists should be open and publicly archived (with posting 
rights limited to members;
Procedures for developing policy positions should be clear and include publicly 
available information about how many participants from each constituency were 
involved in the development of any policy position;
Constituency processes should encourage participation from stakeholders across 
the globe and, where possible, relevant documents should be available in 
multiple languages;
There should be term limits for constituency officers, so as to help attract 
new members and provide everyone with the change to participate in leadership 
positions; and
There should be an emphasis on reaching consensus to achieve objectives and 
closure on issues.

 -----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:11 PM
To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC-CSG Work Team Work Plan Task 1, Subtask 1


I haven't had time to resond to SS's suggested change.  Please note that his 
change substantially changes the wording.  The existing wording deals with 
criteria for new constituencies while his wording deals with membership in 
constituencies.  These are very different things.  It could be that we should 
discuss both if they both are consistent with Board recommendations but I 
haven't had time or access to do that.

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Julie Hedlund [mailto:jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Wednesday, April 15, 2009 02:57 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject:        RE: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC-CSG Work Team Work Plan Task 1, Subtask 1

Dear Work Team Members,

We have had a very helpful discussion on the email list that has produced
several recommendations to amend the language in Task 1, Subtask 1, of our
work plan.  Here are the recommendations:

1.  S.S. recommends changing:


"1.  Develop guidelines for defining admission decision procedures for a new
constituency for each stakeholder group."  to:

"1.  Develop guidelines for defining admission decision procedures for a new
member for each constituency."



2.  Victoria noted that the language she suggested and that we all agreed
to was:



"Develop guidance, rules or principles for participation..." to replace
"template for admission decision procedures..."



3.  Olga and Michael suggested that there could be two items -- a revised
item 1 and a new item 2 as follows:



"1.  Develop guidelines for defining admission decision procedures for a new
constituency to a stakeholder group." and

"2. Develop guidelines for defining admission decision procedures for a new
member for each constituency."



I would like to suggest a way to combine these recommendations, whereby we
adopt the recommendation made by S.S., but keep the existing item 1, as
suggested by Olga and Michael, and also change the text as suggested by
Victoria.  Here is the suggested text:



"1. Develop guidance, rules or principles for participation in a new
constituency for each stakeholder group." and

"2. Develop guidance, rules or principles for participation for new members
in a constituency. "



I welcome your comments and suggestions.  Thank you.



Best regards,



Julie



Julie Hedlund
Policy Consultant