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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Chuck's observations.

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gomes, Chuck 
  To: SS Kshatriy ; OSC-CSG Work Team 
  Cc: Olga Cavalli 
  Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:53 AM
  Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS


  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