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

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

Four more comments, all relating to the Schedules:

*       
        Are the principles in Schedule I working team recommendations or
BGC recommendations.  We should be clear.  Also, I think the wording in
the last bullet needs fixing: "There must be a clear avenue of appeal
for an applicant a rejection to a neutral third party." Should it say,
"There must be a clear avenue of appeal for an applicant rejection to a
neutral third party."
*       
        In Schedule III, item 1 b, minor edit: delete "make" so that it
says, "All executive committees must provide their rules and procedures,
decision making process and criteria to the entire membership of the
Constituency."
*       
        In Schedule III, item 5 (The Constituencies adopt a Code of
Practice to govern their dealings with Staff.), shouldn't this apply to
SGs as well?
*       
        In Schedule III, item 7 (We recommend that recommendations [#]
above, apply also to the Contracted House Stakeholder Groups.)   Is
there any reason why all of the recommendations shouldn't apply to SGs
as well as constituencies, regardless of which House is involved?

Chuck


________________________________

        From: Gomes, Chuck 
        Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:44 PM
        To: 'Victoria McEvedy'; Anthony Harris; OSC-CSG Work Team
        Cc: Julie Hedlund
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] SubTask 1.2 Draft Summary 
        
        
        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