[gnso-osc-csg] Comments for Today's Meeting

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Work Team members,

Here are the comments received for consideration during today’s meeting.  See 
also the document wiki links:  Subtask 1: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_stakeholder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_1
 and Subtask 2: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_and_stake_holder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_2.

Thanks,

Julie

>From Rafik, 10 February:

2.f
IN THE CASE OF REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION OR A DISPUTE IN CONNECTION WITH AN 
APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT MAY LODGE A COMPLAINT WITH THE ICANN OMBUDSMAN [IF 
THE GROUP ACCEPT AND VALID OMBUDSMAN AS NEUTRAL AND NO BIASED THIRD PARTY]. 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.

>From Victoria, 10 February:

2.f
IN THE CASE OF REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION OR A DISPUTE IN CONNECTION WITH AN 
APPLICATION, 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.

3. PARA 2
IT IS RECOMMENDED GROUPS SHOULD FUNCTION ON THE GNSO WG MODEL FOR THE PURPOSES 
OF REACHING CONSENSUS AND THE USE OF VOTING SHOULD BE MINIMISED AS MUCH AS 
POSSIBLE.  (NB this was the original text which we agreed prior to Claudio’s 
new version).

As to Subtask 1.2 –I have no comments as to the edits so far.

As to 1.5 –this is self explanatory and a formal, written and transparent 
method of communicating from Chair to Chair is recommended in future.