[gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO CSG Work Team Call Friday 05 Feb

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Work Team members,

In preparation for our call this Friday I have compiled the proposed changes to 
the text for Task 1, Subtask 1 below in order by section.  These also are on 
the wiki document page at: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_stakeholder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_1.
  As these are proposed changes they are shown on the wiki in curly brackets.  
Here also is the link to the wiki page for Task 1, Subtask 2: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_and_stake_holder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_2.

Please note that our call on Friday, 05 February 2010, begins at 13:00 UTC, 
which is 1 hour earlier than the usual time and the duration will be 90 minutes.

Thanks and I’ll look forward to talking to you on Friday.

Best regards,

Julie

----------------------------
>From ICANN Legal Staff on 02 February for Section 2f:

“We consulted with John, and agree that the proper  reference here is to the 
Office of the Ombudsman.  The Ombudsman is a  neutral and has jurisdiction over 
allegations of unfair treatment by ICANN  constituent bodies.   I recommend 
that to facilitate this, the  language of the recommendation be changed to:

“f.     In case of unfair treatment resulting in the  rejection of an 
application or a dispute, the applicant may lodge a  complaint with the ICANN 
Ombudsman.  The process for lodging a complaint  with the Ombudsman is set 
forth in Article V of the ICANN Bylaws and in the  Ombudsman Framework, 
available at 
http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/documents/ombudsman-framework-26mar09-en.pdf.  “

Original language: “f. In  case of rejection of an application or a dispute, 
the applicant shall have  recourse of appeal to a neutral third party. The 
GROUP shall SELECT such a  neutral third party in consultation with ICANN/GNSO 
{???}.”

-----------------------------
>From Claudio diGangi on 29 January for Section 3:

I proposed the following edit to better flush out and clarify this 
recommendation.

please see below in CAPS for additions

THERE SHOULD BE EMPHASIS ON CONSENSUS BUILDING IN GROUP DELIBERATIONS. GROUPs 
SHOULD REFER to the GNSO WG model. The use of voting WITHIN POLICY 
DELIBERATIONS should be minimized as much as possible.

WHATEVER CONSENSUS BUILDING MODEL OR PROCESS A GROUP USES, THE GROUP MUST 
DESCRIBE THE PROCESS IN THEIR BYLAWS OR CHARTER SO IT IS VISIBLE AND 
TRANSPARENT.