RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO Proposal

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric, first of all, welcome to the team and thank you for your decision to
participate.  But please allow me to clarify, because I know you are just
getting started with us, that Julie's role with our Work Team is more the
messenger than the shaper, so to speak.  I say this because I want to
encourage discussion amongst the work team members.  Whatever your thoughts,
just go ahead and address the group.  If something is coming to the group
from Julie, it is because I asked her to for our own efficiency reasons.
But please view Julie as only the messenger and address and your
comments/views to the work team.

So, to your comment, do I have it right that the point you are raising is
that individuals not yet part of an ICANN recognized constituency will not
be able to participate in the proposed sub group concept?  If so, I think it
is a good catch and we should discuss the pros and cons of that.  I don't
think any of us looked at from this direction or otherwise gave it thought
this way.  So, good comment for us to think about and if anyone has any
thoughts to share to what Eric is raising, please do so.

Ray










-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:08 PM
To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: GNSO Ops Work Team
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO
Proposal


Julie,

Since I'm tasked with representing the interests of the City TLD group, 
to use Robert's term, which is a potential new constituency, but not 
presently a constituency, the entity reference isn't what concerns me. 
Rather, it is the possibly counter-productive over-specification of the 
composition of the entity or sub-group, I'll call it a set, to "... 
officers (representatives) of the different constituencies 
designated/elected specifically for this purpose." This is followed by a 
reference to what is presumably a proper subset of this set, which of 
necessity shares this possibly counter-productive over-specification.

Which is a long-worded observation that whomever is tasked to contribute 
to the OSC on behalf of things that aren't yet constituencies will not 
be able to contribute to OWT and its sub-sets, whether sub-entities or 
sub-groups.

Now, as the purpose of the proposed OWT is administrative, not policy 
development, in nature, and while any restriction on the composition of 
an OWT is within the scope of the proponents of the formation of an OWT, 
it seems reasonable to ask what particular purpose this particular 
restriction on composition serves.

Obviously I can't think of a purpose, but other than the Sundy work 
period in Mexico City, I haven't until this week been tracking OSC Ops 
list or call discussion, and if the subject was discussed yesterday at 
the 1500GMT call time, I'm sorry my CORE staff call time conflicted, and 
I've not yet listened to the audio, so I could be completely mistaken.

Eric

Julie Hedlund wrote:
> Dear Work Team members,
>  
> In response to the following action item:
>  
> *1. High-level operating principles:  Julie Hedlund will prepare an 
> executive summary of Ron Andruff's recommendations, circulate it to 
> Ron for comment, and then to the Work Team for consideration.*
>  
> I have prepared the attached draft document, which Ron has reviewed, 
> for your consideration.  It also is posted on the wiki main page: 
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team.
>  
> Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome.  Also, please 
> let me know if you have any questions.
>  
> Thank you.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Julie
>  
> Julie Hedlund
> Policy Consultant
>  
>