RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS

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

Thanks SS. 
 
In the 3rd paragraph of Section 1, Principles, you refer to 'This cross
Constituency Subtask group'.  What is this?  Do you mean the CSG WT
Subtask group?  If so, I think you might want to just say "this subtask
group' or 'this subtask group made up of participants from several
constituencies' because the term Cross Constituency has other meanings
in the GNSO.
 
In Section 2, item be says, "All Groups must offer membership to natural
persons or individuals as well as to entities with legal personality
such as corporations."  This does not work in all cases.  For example,
the RrSG and RySG members have to be registrars and registries that have
contracts with ICANN.  Also, in the case of the CSG, I don't think a
natural person, by definition, can be a commercial stakeholder.
 
In Section 2, item h still refers to 'equal voting rights'.  What does
that mean?  The Board has already approved SG charters that contain
voting procedures that could be perceived to be unequal.  For example,
the RySG has two different voting processes: one gives one vote to every
registry member; the other is a weighted voting system based on # of
domain names registered and amount of fees paid to ICANN.  Would the
latter procedure satisfy the 'equal voting rights' requirement?
 
Section 2.j says, "No legal or natural person shall be entitled to join
more than one Constituency."  I think this should be modified as
follows: "No legal or natural person shall be entitled to join more than
one Constituency as a voting member."  Note that some SG charters allow
observers to participate but they cannot vote.
 
The 2nd paragraph in Section 3 says: "GROUPs shall function on the GNSO
WG model for the purpose of reaching consensus unless it is determined
using that model that consensus cannot be reached at which point resort
should be had to formal voting in accordance with the procedures in the
Byelaws."  The BGC recommended a de-emphasis on voting and we should
carry that as far as possible.  I am not sure that formal voting always
need to take place if consensus is not reached.  No formal voting ever
occurred in the New gTLD PDP yet we were able to determine when there
was at least rough consensus or not consensus at all. I would suggest
changing this to something like the following: "GROUPs shall function on
the GNSO WG model for the purpose of reaching consensus and the use of
voting should be minimized as much as possible."
 
Chuck

 

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SS Kshatriy
        Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:38 PM
        To: OSC-CSG Work Team
        Cc: Olga Cavalli
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS
        
        
Hi Everybody,
I have attached Draft 2 Subtask 1. this is improvement on Draft 1
earlier circulated and and suitably incorporates inputs from Chuck and
Victoria..
 
best regards,
 
SS