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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

On the Task 2 document, the Work Team members on the call asked whether there 
was more detailed guidance on the types of outreach activities that might be 
included in the recommendations.  Michael asked whether this could be a 
question for the OSC, but I offered first to review the BGC report to see if it 
could provide more guidance in this area, which might obviate the need for a 
request for guidance from the OSC.  So, I have the action to do some analysis 
and report to the Work Team and we’ll take it from there.

Thanks,
Julie


On 5/3/10 12:26 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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).