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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Ray, and of course I understood that Julie simply holds the 
common editorial pen and that the content arises from the group.
You do have it right ... almost. The nuance isn't about individuals, its 
about constituencies and things that aren't constituencies, though they 
might be attempting to acquire that standing, or have had it at some 
prior period, which task individuals, who presumably are willing to be 
so tasked, with contributing to the work of the OWT. The individuals 
perform the act of contribution, but the standing of the individuals to 
contribute arises from some public ensemble, whether a group of gTLD 
applications on behalf of municipalities, or some other organizing 
principle. The current language restricts that standing to 
constituencies, which has obvious consequences and as I mentioned, as 
this is an administrative function, inobvious benefits.
Eric

Ray Fassett wrote:
> 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
> >  
> >  
> >     
>
>
>
>