Re: [gnso-osc-csg] MEETING MINUTES: June 21 meeting

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Claudio for the clarification.
Any of your comments to the remarks done by SS could be very useful.
Best regards
Olga

2009/6/25 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

>
> Sorry for not updating the group about that SS.
>
> It was my oversight!
> ________________________________________
> From: SS Kshatriy [sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:43 PM
> To: Claudio Di Gangi; rafik dammak; Victoria McEvedy
> Cc: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] MEETING MINUTES: June 21 meeting
>
> Dear Claudio Di Gangi,
> Refrerence to the meeting minutes and your remarks:
> "Claudio DiGangi noted that, with respect to Task 1, Subtask 1, he was
> unaware of any updates from the subtask leader, S.S."
>
> I will invite your attention to my mail of May 11 to subtask 1 participants
> that is copied below. You are requested to respond to my mail.
> --
> I had posted updates on May 26. You would have just received the latest
> updates too. I will request your remarks and participation.
> regards,
> SS
>
>
> --- On Mon, 5/11/09, SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEMS: OSC-Constituency Operations Work
> Team-Subtask1
> To: "Claudio Di Gangi" <CDiGangi@xxxxxxxx>, "rafik dammak" <
> rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 1:21 AM
>
> Dear Participants,
>
> Subject-- Completing of Action Items for Subtask 1
>
> I have gone through the analysis of Constituenccies by Julie. As a
> premiliminary step, I have further analysed Subtask 1.2 in detail for two
> action itmes. This analysis is given below my signature.
> 1. Please give your ideas how to proceed with the completion of action
> items?
> 2. Reference to Draft Work Plan, is there any clash/lconflict between
> Subtask 1.2 and Subtask 2.1?
>
> I will look forward to your input.
> regards,
> SS
> ---
> Subtask 1.2     Develop guidelines, rules, or principles for participation
> in constituencies.
>
> Only two criteria are analyzed here:
> a.         Bringing out a Motion on Policy Issues and
> b.         Elections.
>
> 1. Commercial and Business Constituency have in their charter
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/recertification-bc-constituency-jan09.pdf:
> a. Procedure for developing written policy by bringing out a motion on
> policy issue by appointed ‘Rapporteurs’. There is passing reference that any
> member can propose a position paper. But there is no procedure for this.
> It needs to be elaborated and clear rules laid down.
>
> b. There are clear rules for Election of Officers for representation in
> GNSO but it lacks proper management. Management of the Constituency is
> governed by:                     section 4.2 ‘Officers and 4.3 Secretariat’.
> It is a surprising that election is done for GNSO Council and such
> councilors become Officers of the Constituency to run and manage the
> organization. It should have been otherwise. Assume a typical situation when
> due to any reason, Constituency has no representation in GNSO Council. It
> will then be left with no management. Ideal situation should be that there
> is a well managed Organization that has representation in GNSO Council and
> other bodies.
> Hence provision for regular management body, independent of GNSO
> representation should exist.
>
> 2. Registries (gTLD) have ‘Articles of Operation’
> http://www.gtldregistries.org/about_us/articles , which has clear and
> elaborate rules for:
> a. Bringing out a motion for decision making on an issue and
> b. Election of officers.
>
> 3. Internet Service Provider & Connectivity Provider Constituency (ISPCP)
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/recertification-ispcp-04feb09.pdf have 
> called their submission a Charter.
>
> a. Section 3.1 ‘Decision Making Processes in the ISPCP’ needs strengthening
> and elaborating.
> It should have provisions for Constituency Members to raise issues and
> carry out motions.
> b. It has procedures for elections.
> c. There is no proper Charter. Above referred document is a submission for
> Constituency Renewal. There is no link for any Charter Document in the
> ISPCP’s Website and as such, it is not a public document.
> The Constituency should have proper Charter or Byelaws.
>
> 4. Non-Commercial User’s Constituency
> http://ncuc.syr.edu/current_charter.htm
>
> a. There is no provision for members to raise issues. Changes in Charter
> alone can be brought about. This needs to be incorporated in the charter.
> Section IX Communication needs to be strengthened for this purpose.
> b. Charter has well laid out procedure for elections.
>
> 5. Registrars Constituency http://www.icannregistrars.org/RC_Bylaws  and
> http://www.icannregistrars.org/Registrar_Constituency_Rules_of_Procedure
> The Constituency has good rules for:
> a. Bringing out a motion for decision making on an issue and
> b. Election of officers.
>
> 6. Intellectual Property Constituency
> http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws.htm
> The Constituency has good rules for:
> a. Bringing out a motion for decision making on an issue. However, there is
> no provision at all for the members belonging to Category 1A and 1B to
> participate in the affairs of the Constituency or for them to be heard.
> There should be some provision for such members for participation.
> b. Good rules for election of officers.
>  ----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar