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

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

I believe that the Board will decide what are guidelines and what are
rules and we may make recommendations in that regard.  In some cases we
may decide to suggest a rule that is common across the entire GNSO while
in other cases we suggest what we consider to be a best practice.  If
the Board approves a rule, it will apply to all constituencies and/or
SGs; if the Board approves a best practice, a constituency of SG has the
option of making it their own rule or simply a best practice..
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:27 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; OSC-CSG Work Team; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Work Plan Task 1, Subtask 1--my clarification
        
        
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. 

  

a.      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. 
b.      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