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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and team,
my understanding is also that subtask 1 document is for full WT revision.
I understand SS concerns about preparing several versions and I commend his
hard work and his efforts in including all views in these revisions.
Let me suggest the following, could we consider Claudio´s comments and Zahid
support of them as part of the full WT revision process?
I will welcome your comments and we can add a point to our agenda on Friday
to discuss this item, if needed.
Best regards and thanks all for the involvement and hard work.
Olga


2009/12/16 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
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>


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