RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 30 April 2010 Meeting

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

Thanks Julie.  
 
The Task 1 document looks good to me except for the two remaining issues
related to the comments I made.  I assume those will be discussed next
Friday.
 
Regarding the Task 2 document, I do not understand what type of guidance
is needed from the OSC or why guidance is needed.  We have the BGC
report so what is desired from the OSC?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
        Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:30 PM
        To: gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 30 April 2010 Meeting
        
        
        Dear Work Team members,
        
        Here are the actions/summary from today's meeting.  Please let
me know if you have any changes or questions.  Our next meeting will be
held next Friday, 07 May at 1300 UTC/0600 PST/0900 EST for one hour.
Scott Pinzon, Director, Policy Communications/Information Services, will
join us at half past the hour during the discussion on outreach to
provide information and answer questions about current and planned
efforts for communications relating to outreach.  The actions and
summary are included on the wiki at:
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team. 
        
        Best regards,
        
        Julie
        
        Discussion/Action Items:
        
        Task 1: Work Team members agreed with the minor textual changes
made by Julie Hedlund to clarify the organization of the
recommendations. They also asked Julie to insert a reference to the BGC
WG Report to clarify the origin of the specific recommendations to
address any question concerning the difference between the use of
"principles" versus "operating procedures" in the text. In addition, the
Work Team members agreed to change the word "shall" to "should"
throughout the recommendations, but to insert a definition prior to the
recommendations section that "should" means "mandatory" unless otherwise
specified. Finally, the Work Team members decided to delete Appendix A
"Detailed Analysis of Group Operating Principles" since many of the
recommendations in this section are inconsistent with those agreed to in
the recommendations contained in the main body of the document. The Work
Team noted that in the absence of a lengthy discussion of the
recommendations in the "Detailed Analysis" section to make them
consistent with the recommendations in the body of the document the
section should be deleted. However, the Work Team noted that Work Team
members could include any of these details, if desired, in a Minority
Report that would be attached as an Appendix to the document. During the
meeting Claudio noted that there were remaining comments from Chuck and
Rafik that had not been discussed. Julie said they had all been
discussed, but noticed after the call that she was in error. There are a
couple of comments from Chuck in Section 2.3 that need to be discussed
as follows: 1) 2.3.2 Storing and Updating Membership Records, paragraph
c -- need a definition of an "inactive member"; and 2) 2.3.2 paragraph d
-- What is the meaning of the sentence, "The Operator should perform the
updates to those holding an executive position in an ICANN Community." 
        ACTIONS: Julie will make the requested changes as redlines --
DONE: See attached file; and 2) Work Team members are requested to
review the revised document and provide comments and/or minority reports
no later than 14 May.
        
        Task 2: The Work Team began a discussion of comments received
from Olga, Chuck, and Rafik on the framework document. Michael asked
whether the BGC WG Report provided details concerning outreach and Julie
agreed to review the document. She also suggested that Chuck and the OSC
could provide guidance. Michael added that it would be useful, for
example, for the Work Team to recommend the development of a guide to
ICANN for those unfamiliar with the organization. Julie noted that the
Policy Update document as revised by Scott Pinzon had been designed to
be understood by someone not familiar with ICANN and GNSO Policy and she
suggested that it could be helpful for Scott to join for a Work Team
call to discuss current and planned activities that could assist with
outreach efforts.
        ACTIONS: 1) Julie will invite Scott to the call on 7 May (DONE
-- he has agreed to join at half past the hour); 2) Michael will send an
email to the list with his ideas on specific outreach tools; 3) Julie
will review the BGC WG Report for guidance on outreach activities; and
4) Work Team members are requested to provide any additional comments on
the framework document (attached).