RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation re-submit

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

Olga,
 
I believe we are at a point with subtask 1 where the document is now out
of the hands of the subtask team and in the hands of the  full WT, so
the WT can make changes if desired.  Is that correct?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SS Kshatriy
        Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:09 PM
        To: OSC-CSG Work Team; Claudio Di Gangi
        Cc: Olga Cavalli
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final
Recommendation re-submit
        
        
Hi Claudio,
(Also with a request to chair to consider Claudio's comments)
I have read your concerns.
the document I submitted is Final and submitted second time. (Earlier,
even Final Draft was submitted twice.). 
It is not a draft.
Thus it is Final Recommendations from my side and I don't propose to
make any more change as it is not possible for me to accommodate all
views the way one wants.
--
I will leave it to Chair and Team to decide.
You may request Chair to have your points in the Agenda.
 
best,
SS
 
 
--- On Tue, 12/15/09, Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



        From: Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final
Recommendation re-submit
        To: "'SS Kshatriy'" <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>, "OSC-CSG Work Team"
<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 9:52 AM
        
        

        Dear SS,

         

        Thanks. I am pleased to see that many of my prior concerns have
been addressed with the latest draft. 

          

        A few of my concerns still remain however, so I have listed
these below for ease of reference. I hope these can be addressed in the
next version. 

          

        I note that in Section 3. Policy and Consensus, the current
draft states: 

          

        "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."  

          

        I have previously stated that: GROUPs should be able to
determine on their own merits, what model they would like to use for the
purposes of reaching consensus within their membership. 

          

        I do not see a compelling reason why we need to mandate a
uniform model that all GROUPs must use. 

          

        The last I checked the GNSO WG model was not yet fleshed out, so
any decision to incorporate it into the internal functioning of a GROUP
is premature -- or at least should be provisional. Also, a GNSO WG and a
GNSO Constituency or Stakeholder Group have very different
characteristics and different functions. As a result, I don't think its
correct to assume that a consensus model used in one setting, is
necessarily the best to use another setting. 

          

        Here is a suggested amendment to the text: 

          

        "GROUPs should consider adopting various models for reaching
consensus, including for example, the ICANN GNSO WG model. Whatever
model the GROUP chooses to reach consensus should be made clear to its
members within its bylaws or Charter. The use of voting within GROUPs
should be minimized as much as possible."  

          

        My concern remains with recommendation D.1, which states: 

          

        "Admission criteria shall be certain and predictable and not
arbitrary or discretionary.  Where eligibility depends on participation
in a certain sector of business, then applicants shall be entitled to
submit evidence of their participation."  

          

        I have previously commented that within certain GNSO groups,
that there can elements of subjectivity involved in making admission
decisions. This detail is not reflected in the current draft. I
therefore recommend the following edit: 

          

        "Admission criteria shall be certain and predictable and not
arbitrary or discretionary to the maximum extent possible.  Where
eligibility depends on participation in a certain sector of business,
then applicants shall be entitled to submit evidence of their
participation."  

          

        On Section 2e, I still think the applicant should be able to
"Opt-In or Opt-Out" of making their application status publically
available. This is not reflected in the draft. 

          

        Thanks again for your continuing efforts. 

          

        Claudio 

          

          

          

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SS Kshatriy
        Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:31 AM
        To: OSC-CSG Work Team
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final
Recommendation re-submit

          

Hi Chair and Team,

Further to posting of Final Recommendations, comments from Chuck, Zahid
and Rafik were recieved.

I have incorporated these comments in the Final Recommendations and
informed Chuck, Zahid and Rafik individually.

 

The Final document is re-submitted for your referwnce.

 

best,

SS

--

         

          
________________________________