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

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

Makes sense to me Olga.  Thanks.  At this stage, I suggest we give the pen to 
Julie.  SS has worked long and hard on this and that is very much appreciated 
but it would be unreasonable to expect him to continue to use his time in 
support of WT revisions; he signed up as subtask leader and has delivered what 
was expected.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:33 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: SS Kshatriy; OSC-CSG Work Team; Claudio Di Gangi
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final 
Recommendation re-submit
        
        
        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