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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

 

Welcome to the discussion.  You raise an interesting point that had not been
considered, however the model Julie submitted for our review (prior to going
out to the constituencies for comment) accommodates your concern.  Let me
give you an example using your proposed new constituency; let's call it the
CTC (city TLD constituency).  The CTC is an "aspirant", i.e. it has NOT been
recognized by ICANN at this point, and the existing constituency it most
closely aligns with is the Registry Constituency (RyC).  So the CTC would
take "observer" status within the RyC until such time as it becomes
recognized as a constituency in its own right.  At that point - and only at
that point, as "wannabes" do not have seats at the table until they are bona
fide members of the community - the CTC would then be in a position to seek
its own representation.  "Aspirants" would need to meet some threshold to be
recognized, e.g. they filed their application with ICANN and can demonstrate
some level of support for the app. in order to prevent any loosely organized
group from running amok.

 

The reallocation of representatives/votes within any SG, as new
constituencies form, is a GNSO-wide issue that could be approached in either
of two ways:  The first approach would be for the broader SG membership to
identify a transparent process and send it up to the Policy Council for a
vote; or the second approach would be to determine a solution at the Policy
Council level, then get buy-in from the larger GNSO membership.

 

Ultimately, in our WT's proposal that Julie circulated, the Policy Council
needs to undertake an evaluation of how to best deal with issues such as
reallocation of seats/votes.  But, to be clear, the model proposed does NOT
inhibit or preclude anyone's participation in the ICANN process.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: 2009-04-16 19:15
To: Ray Fassett
Cc: 'Eric Brunner-Williams'; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Action Item: GNSO Ops Work Team First Draft GNSO
Proposal

 

 

On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:37 PM, 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? 

 

Individuals are invited to participate in both (FWIU) the business
constituency and also the non-commercial constituency, so there is
opportunity for individuals to participate in any GNSO processes. However,
I'm not suggesting that we not look at opening up individual participation
if it makes sense.

 

Robin

 

 





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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA

p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx