RE: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTION ITEMS: GNSO Operations Work Team 29 April 2009 Meeting

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robin, the point you are making with regards to the use of the term
Stakeholder Group as the primary language is one I also raised during our
call today (i.e. makes sense to me too).  We decided to stay with the status
quo terminology since the Stakeholder Group model has not yet been formally
adopted, but to add the footnote in anticipation or recognition of it.

 

I also agree with your point # 2 (to delete this, and a good catch in my
view).  Your point # 3 is not substantive to me to the document and have no
problem adding it.

 

Julie, can you please make these edits to the document as Robin is proposing
as # 2 and # 3 below?

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 7:31 PM
To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; Ray Fassett
Cc: GNSO Ops Work Team
Subject: 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:
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-ops-20090429.mp3> MP3,
<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_gnso_operations_team_meeting_n
otes> 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 Hedlund

Policy 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