Re: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTION ITEMS: GNSO Operations Work Team 29 April 2009 Meeting
Thanks for this revised version of the document. However, how do I get the 3 points I raised incorporated into the document?
On point 1 below, It looks like a footnote has been added to say "maybe it could be Stakeholder Group" where it currently says "constituency". But the better approach is to reverse that and use the words "Stakeholder Group" throughout the document and a footnote that says "maybe it could be constituencies". It seems pretty obvious that SG are the way forward, so drafting this document with the alternative in the main text is contrary to what is happening in the restructuring process and will only lead to more confusion with mixing up constituencies and stakeholder groups.
Should I send a red-line version of the document with my proposed edits that were not included in this revision?
Thank you, Robin -----------------------------------1. This document does not seem to take into account that it is Stakeholder Groups (and not Constituencies) who are selecting GNSO Councilors, etc. in the new GSNO framework.
Since the NCUC as a "Constituency" is dissolving and will be members of the NonCommercial Stakeholder Group, the framework proposed in this document would not give those SG members any input into these proposed new subgroups -- as they will be populated by "Constituency" representatives in the wording of this document).
If we change some of the language in the document to simply say "Stakeholder Group" where it currently says "Constituency", we could fix this problem.
2. I'd like to propose that we delete the phrase in the document that states that "the malicious use/abuse of domain names" is an issue that "needs addressing". While some in the GNSO believe that is something the GNSO should undertake, many do not agree that ICANN should expand its technical mission into this area, so this document should not take a side on that debate.
3. One of the suggested functions of the policy councilors in the proposed document is "considering the need for economic analysis". As "economic" analysis is an important and valid concern for business, it does not adequately capture the concerns of non- commercial users in policy development, so I propose that we add "or other" to this phrase to include the concerns of non-commercial users. So it would instead read: "considering the need for economic or other analysis". (@ top of p.4 and middle of p.3)
That's it. Thank you! Best, Robin On Apr 29, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
Dear Work Team Members,Here are the action items and main discussion points from our call. Please let me know if you have suggestions for changes or additions. These are posted on the wiki at: https://st.icann.org/ icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team I also have added a link to the MP3 recording and will link to the transcript as soon as it is available. Also, our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 13 May 2009, at 1600 UTC.Action Items: 1. High-level operating principles:--Ron and Julie to revise the draft document incorporating edits from the team and circulate it for review. (See attached document.)--Work Team to review and respond by Tuesday, 05 May.--Ray to circulate to select group of community members for consideration: Marilyn Cade, Avri Doria, Roberto Gaetano, Chuck Gomes, Robin Gross, Steve Metalitz, John Nevett, Philip Sheppard, and Bruce Tonkin. 2. Statements/Declarations of Interest: Julie to revise the draft document incorporating edits from the team and circulate it for review. (See attached document.) 29 April 2009 Meeting -- Main Discussion Points (Link to: MP3, Previous Meeting Notes and Links):1. Approved the Work Team Charter.2. Agreed to replace meeting notes with transcripts posted on the wiki page, and to post/email action items and main points.3. High level-operating principles: --Discussed the draft document with edits from Tony Holmes.--Recommended changes to the org chart, addition of a preamble, and circulating the document to a select group prior to wider community circulation.4. SOI/DOI: --Suggested deleting legal language referencing California law.--Discussed positioning the document as a Statement of Interest/ Declaration of Interest Policy, vs. Conflict of Interest. --Agreed to revise the document but redlines will allow Work Team members not on the call to see both original and new text, for consideration.Thank you very much. Best regards, Julie Julie HedlundPolicy Consultant<GNSO Ops WT Proposed GNSO Structure (JHv3RAv3THv1).doc><GNSO OSC GCOT WT Draft SOI-DOI Policy v4.doc>
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