RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS-Chuck's comments
Again - apologies for not responding sooner, but here are my comments. Good work SS! PLEASE NOTE MY NEW MOBILE NUMBER BELOW Krista Papac Sales Executive Iron Mountain Digital 5530 Bandini Blvd Bell, CA 90201 US Home Office: +1.714.846.8780 Mobile: +1.714.865.7655 Fax: +1.323.443.3573 krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Visit the new www.ironmountain.com <http://www.ironmountain.com/> Tour Iron Mountain <http://www.ironmountain.com/US/services/tours/corporate.asp> (c) 2008 Iron Mountain Incorporated. All rights reserved. Iron Mountain and the design of the mountain are registered trademarks of Iron Mountain Incorporated. Iron Mountain Privacy Policy: http://www.ironmountain.com/legal/privacy.asp Iron Mountain, 745 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA, 02111 www.ironmountain.com <http://www.ironmountain.com/> ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SS Kshatriy Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:31 PM To: OSC-CSG Work Team; ChuckGomes Cc: Olga Cavalli Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS-Chuck's comments Thanks Chuck for thoughtful comments on Subtask 1. -- Before incorporating Victoria's inputs into Draft 2, I had gone through closely with her comments and arguments and after being satisfied, I included into the body. There could be difference of opinion and understading. I think we should iron out these in the meeting and later by weighing each argument with references. -- Tony Harris, If you too good give section wise arguments, it will add to the discussions. Merely agreeing with Chuck may not help. best, SS -- --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS To: "SS Kshatriy" <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>, "OSC-CSG Work Team" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 7:53 AM 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 The information contained in this email message and its attachments is intended only for the private and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, unless the sender expressly agrees otherwise. Transmission of email over the Internet is not a secure communications medium. If you are requesting or have requested the transmittal of personal data, as defined in applicable privacy laws by means of email or in an attachment to email you must select a more secure alternate means of transmittal that supports your obligations to protect such personal data. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient and/or you have received this email in error, you must take no action based on the information in this email and you are hereby notified that any dissemination, misuse, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. Attachment:
1-Recommenda tions-draft2 Subtask1-KPedit.doc
|