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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck.
Regards
Olga

2009/9/3 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] 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 2/3
>    rds. "  (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 *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 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 <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> *To:* OSC-CSG Work Team <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund <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 *
>
> [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.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ 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
>
>


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