RE: [gnso-osc-csg] SubTask 1.2 Draft Summary

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

With the understanding that I am not on the subtask 1.2 group and that I
am late in responding, here are my comments.  My apologies for not being
able to get to this sooner.
 
Chuck
 
Let me start off by complimenting all of you on some very excellent and
thorough work.

1.      
        The acronym GCOT will not work for our WT because it is already
be used by the GNSO Council Operations Team.  We could use something
like CSG WT (Constituency & Stakeholder Group WT).  Need a global change
on this.
2.      
        In cases where you refer to specific subtasks, I suggest you
provide a brief but descriptive title for the subtasks so that those who
read this and are not part of our WT will know what you are talking
about. This happens on page 5 under "Overlap between Operating
Procedures and Openness, Transparency and Accountability in
Participation".  See also "Subtask 1.1" in the last paragraph under
Communications.
3.      
        Under "Review of possible models" I suggest a minor edit at the
end of the first paragraph: change "self evident" to "evident".
4.      
        Part II: Analysis, 1. Executive Leadership, the first sentence
says, ". . given that many Constituencies are run entirely by their
executive. . .  ".  Should it say "given that many Constituencies are
run entirely by their executive leadership"?
5.      
        In the 1st sentence under Process Issues there is reference to
'wider GCOT group'.  For the sake of outsiders who may eventually read
this report, it probably would be helpful to clarify what is meant.
6.      
        I am not sure that the following two paragraphs under Process
Issues is useful: "We note by example the process by which Stakeholder
Group operations were removed from the GCOT remit -to the Structural
Improvements Committee.  This group was not consulted, advised in
advance, nor offered an opportunity to input.  Indeed -we are not clear
on how this came to pass as the process was in no way transparent to us
--though our remit was directly impacted." and "We also note concerns
that at various points Staff may have faced pressure from some
interested parties -in relation to aspects of our work -and we refer
here to the 'informal negotiations' with Constituency leaders (prior to
the Board request for the same). Controversial issues appeared diverted
to Staff ---who we believe may face lobbying and pressure from
experienced members of interest groups-behind closed doors.  This is a
major challenge to all objectives of GNSO reform."
7.      
        Under Part II: Analysis, item 1, Executive Leadership, the 6th
paragraph says, "We recommend as minimums for all Constituencies that
all minutes and resolutions of their Executive Committee be published
within 24 hours. "  Would an accessible recording of a meeting suffice?
Are detailed word for word minutes required?  I think it would be good
if we recommended some flexibility here.  Note that the Board doesn't
provide comprehensive minutes of its meetings but the minutes, in my
opinion, satisfy the intent desired.
8.      
        Item 4, GNSO Representatives/Election of SG Reps,  says, "We
recommend that these elections be voted on by the entire membership of
each Constituency.  We refer to the comments as to voting and elections
herein."  Don't all elections require voting of some sort?  I think the
wording 'elections be voted on ' could be improved.
9.      
        The 2nd sentence under Meeting Procedures says, "We recommend
that as far as possible basic meeting procedure should be standardized
and common across all Constituencies."   "basic meeting procedure"
should be defined.  I doubt that the intent is that every constituency
should run their meetings the same.  We see no benefit to variations in
meeting procedure -and an information barrier layer of complexity
without real purpose."  We should be clearer about what is meant by
"basic meeting procedures".  The wording seems way too broad to me.
10.     
        The 3rd paragraph under Meeting Procedure refers to "the ICANN
WG model".  Note first that it is not an ICANN WG model but rather a
"GNSO WG model".  I suggest we say, "the GNSO WG model currently under
development".
11.     
        In Dealings with Staff, what is meant by "Independent Ownership
of the Code".  I think added clarification would be helpful.
12.     
        There are several statements in the document that appear to be
recommendations but are not included in Schedule III.  I like the fact
that the recommendations are summarized in schedule III.  Here are some
statements that appear to be recommendations but don't seem to be
included in Schedule III:

*       "the BGC Guideline that procedures for developing policy
positions should be clear and that information should be publicly
available about how many participants from each constituency were
involved in the development of any policy position -is also relevant."
(Paragraph 4 under Executive Leadership)
*       ". . having constituencies agree to adopt the ICANN Working
Group Operating Model -as finally recommended by the Policy Process
Steering Committee to govern Committee process-including Policy and
Advisory Committees" (paragraph 1 under Committees)
*       "The fact a committee has been established should be published
on the Constituency website and the final work products and minutes
should be made available to the entire constituency membership."
(paragraph 2 under Committees)
*       ""mailing and discussion lists should be open and publicly
archived (with posting rights limited to members)" and we understand
this to apply to the mailing and discussion lists of committees as well
as the whole Constituency membership."  (Communications paragraph 3)
*       ". . each constituency should maintain up-to-date records of all
current members, and this information must be publicly available."
(Communications paragraph 5)
*       "We note that the BGC recommended a limit of two terms for GNSO
Representatives[1] <outbind://120/#_ftn1>  and we would recommend that
this limit be adopted within Constituency for all office
holders-including those on Executive and Policy Committees."  (Elections
paragraph 4)
*       "We also recommend that all Constituencies publish on their
websites -and make publicly available a list of all Officers and Office
holders and their respective positions since 2000 "  (Elections
paragraph 5)
*       "Weighted or tiered voting systems should be standardized and
require the express approval of the Board on exceptional grounds and
based on recognized principles -to be developed. " (last paragraph under
Voting)
*       "In accordance with the BGC's concerns as to openness,
transparency and accountability --- we recommend all Constituencies
publish their full accounts. "  (Finance)
*       "The procedure for amending Constituency Charters should be
stipulated and standard -requiring advance notice and a majority of
2/3rds. "  (Amendments)
*       (There may be others,)

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
        Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 7:23 PM
        To: Harris, Anthony; OSC-CSG Work Team
        Cc: Julie Hedlund
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] SubTask 1.2 Draft Summary 
        
        

        Thank you for your comments Tony. 

         

        I will incorporate all comments and re-circulate.  

         

        Thank you to all who have commented. 

         

        Best,

         

        Victoria McEvedy

        Principal 

        McEvedys

        Solicitors and Attorneys 

         

         

        96 Westbourne Park Road 

        London 

        W2 5PL

         

        T:    +44 (0) 207[Gomes, Chuck] b  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: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: 01 September 2009 23:21
        To: Victoria McEvedy; OSC-CSG Work Team
        Cc: Julie Hedlund
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] SubTask 1.2 Draft Summary 

         

        Dear Work Team,

         

         

        First I would like to thank Victoria for a very thorough

        and detailed draft, which has been very professionally

        presented.

         

        There is however, an undertow of criticism to the

        Constituencies, which might perhaps be reconsidered,

        since in my humble opinion they have performed

        remarkably well over the last 10 years, as part of the

        epic experiment that ICANN has been. 

         

        My comments address this concern (in blue text).

         

        Regards

         

        Tony Harris

         

         

                ----- Original Message ----- 

                From: Victoria McEvedy <mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>  

                To: OSC-CSG Work Team <mailto:gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>  

                Cc: Julie Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>  

                Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:24 PM

                Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] SubTask 1.2 Draft Summary 

                 

                Sub Task 1.2 team members and others -please see
attached a draft for discussion on our subtask. This is incomplete and
preliminary.  

                 

                Best, 

                 

                Victoria McEvedy

                Principal 

                McEvedys

                Solicitors and Attorneys 

                

                 

                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. 

                 

                
                
                __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 4353 (20090820) __________
                
                The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
                
                http://www.eset.com

        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4387 (20090901) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com



        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4387 (20090901) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com