Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEMS: OSC-Constituency Operations Work Team 08 May Meeting

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,
I think that Victoria has issues with her mailbox , as I received two late
emails that one sent the 13th May and received today.

Regards

Rafik


2009/7/15 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Victoria,
>
> Are you disagreeing with everything I said?  If not, it would be helpful if
> you were specific about your disagreement and your question of authority.
>
> Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Victoria McEvedy
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2009 3:36 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; Olga Cavalli; Michael Young
>
> *Cc:* OSC-CSG Work Team; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEMS: OSC-Constituency Operations
> Work Team 08 May Meeting
>
>  I wouldn’t agree with that myself Chuck—what’s your authority?
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* 11 May 2009 20:26
> *To:* sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; Olga Cavalli; Michael Young
> *Cc:* OSC-CSG Work Team; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEMS: OSC-Constituency Operations
> Work Team 08 May Meeting
>
>
>
> My compliments SS and some good work.  I think you have identified some
> areas where we can develop some recommendations that could be applied across
> all constituencies and SGs.  The key will be to do that for those areas that
> relate clearly to a specific Board recommendation, keeping in mind that it
> is not our task to analyze charters but rather we are reviewing charters
> simply as a means of developing implementation recommendations for Board
> GNSO improvement recommendations.
>
>
>
> For example, a possible implementation recommendation could be something
> like this: All constituencies and/or stakeholder groups should have well
> defined procedures for any member to raise issues and for developing issues
> into policy statements.  Whether or not such procedures need to be in a
> charter or in some other place can be debated.
>
>
>
> Regarding the management of a constituency, we may need to be careful about
> weighing in on that topic unless it relates directly to a Board
> recommendation.  I think we should be able to clearly connect any
> recommendation we make to a specific Board recommendation for improvement
> for constituencies (and SGs).
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *SS Kshatriy
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2009 4:04 AM
> *To:* Olga Cavalli; Michael Young
> *Cc:* OSC-CSG Work Team; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEMS: OSC-Constituency Operations
> Work Team 08 May Meeting
>
> The Chair,
>
> *Subject: ** Comments and inputs in relation with the documents drafted by
> Staff* **
>
> *Ref: Meeting Notes: *
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes
> **
>
> * *
>
> Julie has produced a good analysis of Constituency Charters. It is good to
> make a start.
> Is it possible to make detailed analysis touching as many criteria as
> possible?
>
>
>
> As an example I am giving below my analysis on two criteria under Subtask
> 1.2.
>
> a.         Bringing out a Motion on Policy Issues and
>
> b.         Elections.* ***
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> SS
>
> --
>
> *Subtask 1.2:   Analysis of Constituency Charters *
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- On *Fri, 5/8/09, Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
> From: Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEMS: OSC-Constituency Operations Work Team
> 08 May Meeting
> To: "OSC-CSG Work Team" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 11:00 AM
>
> Dear Work Team Members,
>
>
>
> Here are the action items from today's meeting.  These also are posted on
> the wiki at:
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team.  In
> addition, you may reference the meeting notes at:
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes
>  and
> the MP3 at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20090508.mp3.  The
> transcript will be posted to the wiki as soon as it is available.  Note also
> that all reference documents are linked to the wiki.
>
>
>
> *08 May Meeting Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *1. Letter to OSC:* Michael will draft and circulate to the team for
> review a letter to the OSC expressing concern about possible conflicts with
> respect to the work of the team and the timing of the Board approval of
> constituency and stakeholder group charters, as well as concerns with the
> constituency renewal process. *Due date: Friday, 15 May.*
>
> *2. Project Plans:* Each subtask leader should develop a preliminary
> project plan suggesting the timing for completing the subtask. *Due date:
> Two weeks – by the next meeting on Friday, 22 May.*
>
> *3. Identification of Best & Bad Practices:* Subtask leaders and their
> team members should identify best practices as well as bad practices, as
> they relate to their subtasks, using as a starting point the preliminary
> analysis of constituency/stakeholder charters, but also information on
> constituency web pages and directly from constituencies. *Due date: Four
> weeks – by the meeting on Friday, 05 June.*
>
>
>
> Comments and clarifications on the action items and meeting notes are
> welcome.   Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> Julie Hedlund
>
> Policy Consultant
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>